Ian Huntley is a victim of a crime and deserves compo
The BBC is reporting Soham killer Huntley 'should not sue' over jail attack
Soham murderer Ian Huntley should drop a compensation claim against the Prison Service after an inmate slashed his throat, victims campaigners have said.
The BBC wheel out a stupid cow! "Campaigner Ann Oakes-Odger, whose son Westley was killed in a knife attack in 2005, described Huntley's decision to sue as an "absolute moral obscenity"". What is absolutely morally obscene is that this woman can express her rabid views against a crime victim, in this case, Mr Huntley. Sad bitch!
The the Good old Beeb roll out the complete Tosser "Norman Brennan, founder of the Victims of Crime Trust, said that if Huntley won his claim, his victims' families should sue him". The idiot wants to set victim against victim! It is disgracwful that some clown with the Victims of Crimes Trust has no sympathy for a clear Victim of a Crime! He is like Hitler saying which Jews go into the gas chamber and which go into a Labour Camp! Cunts like this make me sick!
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, July 31, 2010
Sarah's Law just another knee-jerk policy!
Sarah's Law just another knee-jerk policy!
It is a shame that Teresa May is spoiling her good record of getting rid of Labour's failed ASBO scheme, by supporting the ridiculous Sarah's Law. The claim that it has worked in 10% of cases is belied by the failure to distinguish between a persons criminal record for offences not related to sex crimes against children.
It is a shame that Teresa May is spoiling her good record of getting rid of Labour's failed ASBO scheme, by supporting the ridiculous Sarah's Law. The claim that it has worked in 10% of cases is belied by the failure to distinguish between a persons criminal record for offences not related to sex crimes against children.
Interns are 'entitled to be paid' says report
Interns are 'entitled to be paid' says report
Many young people working for free as interns are legally entitled to be paid, and could launch tribunal claims for back wages, a new report says.
Think tank the IPPR and campaign group Internocracy argue private sector firms are "almost certainly" breaking the law by offering unpaid internships.
The report says many volunteers could be legally defined as workers under national minimum wage legislation.
It warns the current position leaves employers open to compensation claims.
I seem to recall reading that Iain Dale has made a habit of getting interns to work for him for no wages. I hope some of those interns now read this report and submit claims to the Employment Tribunal.
Many young people working for free as interns are legally entitled to be paid, and could launch tribunal claims for back wages, a new report says.
Think tank the IPPR and campaign group Internocracy argue private sector firms are "almost certainly" breaking the law by offering unpaid internships.
The report says many volunteers could be legally defined as workers under national minimum wage legislation.
It warns the current position leaves employers open to compensation claims.
I seem to recall reading that Iain Dale has made a habit of getting interns to work for him for no wages. I hope some of those interns now read this report and submit claims to the Employment Tribunal.
A tour of the jail within a jail that houses Britain's most dangerous convicts
A tour of the jail within a jail that houses Britain's most dangerous convicts
Mark Hughes is the first newspaper journalist to be allowed inside Belmarsh's High Security Unit
Cell 12 on wing three is about 6ft wide by 10ft long. A small window covered by wire mesh offers the dull view of a wall outside. There is a small television on a plastic desk in one corner and a metal toilet in the other.
Only the long, specially-adapted, lever tap handles give any indication as to the identity of the occupant. For the past six years this has been "home" to Abu Hamza, the notorious Muslim cleric. He is one of just nine prisoners held in Britain's most secure prison.
Holding the country's most dangerous criminals, HMP Belmarsh's High Security Unit (HSU) is a prison within-a-prison. And, until now, almost nothing has been known about it. Even within the main jail, most of the 843 prisoners have no idea what goes on inside.
Fancy letting a blind, deaf and dumb journalist into the prison!
Mark Hughes is the first newspaper journalist to be allowed inside Belmarsh's High Security Unit
Cell 12 on wing three is about 6ft wide by 10ft long. A small window covered by wire mesh offers the dull view of a wall outside. There is a small television on a plastic desk in one corner and a metal toilet in the other.
Only the long, specially-adapted, lever tap handles give any indication as to the identity of the occupant. For the past six years this has been "home" to Abu Hamza, the notorious Muslim cleric. He is one of just nine prisoners held in Britain's most secure prison.
Holding the country's most dangerous criminals, HMP Belmarsh's High Security Unit (HSU) is a prison within-a-prison. And, until now, almost nothing has been known about it. Even within the main jail, most of the 843 prisoners have no idea what goes on inside.
Fancy letting a blind, deaf and dumb journalist into the prison!
Ian Huntley: Soham murderer sues government over prison attack
Ian Huntley: Soham murderer sues government over prison attack
Ian Huntley, the Soham killer, has launched a legal bid against the Government for compensation after his throat was slashed in prison, the Government confirmed.
The 36-year-old double child murderer, who is serving two life sentences, is suing for tens of thousands of pounds following the attack by a fellow inmate in March.
The Prison Service late on Friday confirmed his claim, which it vowed to “vigorously defend”.
But senior government sources dismissed reports that he was demanding almost £100,000 as “complete rubbish”.
Huntley was allegedly attacked in the health care wing of high security HMP Frankland, in Co Durham by Damien Fowkes, a 34 year-old robber serving a life sentence for threatening a family at knifepoint during a break-in.
The former school caretaker, who murdered 10 year-old friends Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, in 2002, needed emergency hospital treatment after being slashed across the throat.
It was widely thought Fowkes, a former drug addict, allegedly attacked Huntley with the blade a day before a planned search of their prison for weapons.
The Prison Officers Association has warned Huntley, who has been scarred for life, could try to sue for compensation.
The Daily Mail reported that Huntley was seeking £20,000 for his injuries and a further £60,000 in punitive damages because he believes the authorities should have better protected him. Experts have said he could win £20,000.
Such a payout would be almost the same amount awarded to the girls’ parents, after the two families received just £11,000 each following their daughters’ deaths in Soham, Cambridgeshire.
Figures paid out for the death of a child are lower than for the death of an adult because the financial impact is deemed to not be as great.
Huntley is also expected to separately to claim compensation, reportedly up to £15,000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.
There was speculation the government would attempt to settle the claim to avoid any embarrassing court hearings, which could eventually cost the taxpayer up to £1million.
Earlier this year, Jack Straw, the former Justice Secretary, said the government had "absolutely no intention" of paying compensation to Huntley over the attack.
Campaigners also questioned whether any compensation would be paid to three prison officers who were stabbed by an inmate wielding a shard of glass just a week before the attack on Huntley.
Colin Moses, president of the Prison Officers Association, said: “The prison officers… will have to fight tooth and nail for any sort of compensation, yet it will almost certainly be served up on a plate for Ian Huntley.”
It is not the first attack on Huntley, who has previously made at least three suicide attempts.
A fellow inmate threw boiling water over Huntley while he was on the health care wing of Wakefield Prison, West Yorks, in 2005.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: “Ian Huntley is bringing a claim against the Ministry of Justice following an assault by another prisoner.
“The claim is currently being vigorously defended.”
He declined to comment further.
Fowkes was jailed for life at Northampton Crown Court in 2002 after pleading guilty to robbery.
He had broken in to a house and threatened the occupiers with a knife before escaping with jewellery and money.
Comment: I believe that Huntley is entitled to a claim for damages and should win against the MoJ. However, I do not fancy his chances with a claim in relation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. This tends to be for innocent victims of crimes. I don't think that Jack Straw stating that the government had no intention of paying compensation to Huntley was a wise thing to say. It was an unthinking and knee-jerk political response to a media question relating to a legal issue.
Ian Huntley, the Soham killer, has launched a legal bid against the Government for compensation after his throat was slashed in prison, the Government confirmed.
The 36-year-old double child murderer, who is serving two life sentences, is suing for tens of thousands of pounds following the attack by a fellow inmate in March.
The Prison Service late on Friday confirmed his claim, which it vowed to “vigorously defend”.
But senior government sources dismissed reports that he was demanding almost £100,000 as “complete rubbish”.
Huntley was allegedly attacked in the health care wing of high security HMP Frankland, in Co Durham by Damien Fowkes, a 34 year-old robber serving a life sentence for threatening a family at knifepoint during a break-in.
The former school caretaker, who murdered 10 year-old friends Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, in 2002, needed emergency hospital treatment after being slashed across the throat.
It was widely thought Fowkes, a former drug addict, allegedly attacked Huntley with the blade a day before a planned search of their prison for weapons.
The Prison Officers Association has warned Huntley, who has been scarred for life, could try to sue for compensation.
The Daily Mail reported that Huntley was seeking £20,000 for his injuries and a further £60,000 in punitive damages because he believes the authorities should have better protected him. Experts have said he could win £20,000.
Such a payout would be almost the same amount awarded to the girls’ parents, after the two families received just £11,000 each following their daughters’ deaths in Soham, Cambridgeshire.
Figures paid out for the death of a child are lower than for the death of an adult because the financial impact is deemed to not be as great.
Huntley is also expected to separately to claim compensation, reportedly up to £15,000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.
There was speculation the government would attempt to settle the claim to avoid any embarrassing court hearings, which could eventually cost the taxpayer up to £1million.
Earlier this year, Jack Straw, the former Justice Secretary, said the government had "absolutely no intention" of paying compensation to Huntley over the attack.
Campaigners also questioned whether any compensation would be paid to three prison officers who were stabbed by an inmate wielding a shard of glass just a week before the attack on Huntley.
Colin Moses, president of the Prison Officers Association, said: “The prison officers… will have to fight tooth and nail for any sort of compensation, yet it will almost certainly be served up on a plate for Ian Huntley.”
It is not the first attack on Huntley, who has previously made at least three suicide attempts.
A fellow inmate threw boiling water over Huntley while he was on the health care wing of Wakefield Prison, West Yorks, in 2005.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: “Ian Huntley is bringing a claim against the Ministry of Justice following an assault by another prisoner.
“The claim is currently being vigorously defended.”
He declined to comment further.
Fowkes was jailed for life at Northampton Crown Court in 2002 after pleading guilty to robbery.
He had broken in to a house and threatened the occupiers with a knife before escaping with jewellery and money.
Comment: I believe that Huntley is entitled to a claim for damages and should win against the MoJ. However, I do not fancy his chances with a claim in relation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. This tends to be for innocent victims of crimes. I don't think that Jack Straw stating that the government had no intention of paying compensation to Huntley was a wise thing to say. It was an unthinking and knee-jerk political response to a media question relating to a legal issue.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Man wrongly jailed 27 years still not out
Man wrongly jailed 27 years still not out
By Brian Rodgers Houston Chronicle
Web Posted: 07/30/2010 12:12 CDT
A Houston man who was expected to be freed Thursday after being imprisoned 27 years for a rape he didn’t commit had to wait at least one more day after shouting from a holding cell and threatening bailiffs and jailers.
Michael Anthony Green reacted “emotionally” to the reality of his release, said Bob Wicoff, his attorney.
Green, 45, blew up after he was put in handcuffs and leg irons for the walk to court, Wicoff said. He also said the jailer who handcuffed Green jerked his arm roughly and put the cuffs on too tight.
“There was no reason to put leg irons on a guy who is getting out,” Wicoff said. “It’s totally ridiculous and it’s mean.”
Green’s family members, who were in the courtroom, said he should’ve been released regardless of his behavior.
“This is ridiculous,” said Green’s sister Brenda Murray. “The judge and everybody else should be ashamed of themselves. This is bad.”
The family didn’t get to talk to Green, but he was visited amid shouting episodes by his defense attorney from 1983, Bill Harmon.
Harmon, now a Harris County court-at-law judge, said it was a “mystery” why Green wasn’t released.
After the case was reset for today, Wicoff said his client was angry and needed another day to compose himself before having bail set while the Texas Court of Criminal Appeal rules on his actual innocence.
UPDATE:
Texas Man Walks Free After Serving 27 Years for Rape He Didn't Commit
By Brian Rodgers Houston Chronicle
Web Posted: 07/30/2010 12:12 CDT
A Houston man who was expected to be freed Thursday after being imprisoned 27 years for a rape he didn’t commit had to wait at least one more day after shouting from a holding cell and threatening bailiffs and jailers.
Michael Anthony Green reacted “emotionally” to the reality of his release, said Bob Wicoff, his attorney.
Green, 45, blew up after he was put in handcuffs and leg irons for the walk to court, Wicoff said. He also said the jailer who handcuffed Green jerked his arm roughly and put the cuffs on too tight.
“There was no reason to put leg irons on a guy who is getting out,” Wicoff said. “It’s totally ridiculous and it’s mean.”
Green’s family members, who were in the courtroom, said he should’ve been released regardless of his behavior.
“This is ridiculous,” said Green’s sister Brenda Murray. “The judge and everybody else should be ashamed of themselves. This is bad.”
The family didn’t get to talk to Green, but he was visited amid shouting episodes by his defense attorney from 1983, Bill Harmon.
Harmon, now a Harris County court-at-law judge, said it was a “mystery” why Green wasn’t released.
After the case was reset for today, Wicoff said his client was angry and needed another day to compose himself before having bail set while the Texas Court of Criminal Appeal rules on his actual innocence.
UPDATE:
Texas Man Walks Free After Serving 27 Years for Rape He Didn't Commit
Jon Venables: Judge says he faces danger so keeps anonymous status
Jon Venables: Judge says he faces danger so keeps anonymous status
Jon Venables faces 'clear and present danger' to his life, says judge
The new identity of killer Jon Venables must be kept secret because of the ''compelling evidence'' of a threat to his safety, a judge said today.
"Mr Justice Bean ruled that ''unpopular'' defendants had as much right to protection from retribution as anyone else".
So there Denise Fergus, the Sun and Daily Mail!
Jon Venables faces 'clear and present danger' to his life, says judge
The new identity of killer Jon Venables must be kept secret because of the ''compelling evidence'' of a threat to his safety, a judge said today.
"Mr Justice Bean ruled that ''unpopular'' defendants had as much right to protection from retribution as anyone else".
So there Denise Fergus, the Sun and Daily Mail!
Tories accused of double standards over egg throwers!
Tories accused of double standards over egg throwers!
The Tory party's token Paki, Miss Sayeeda Warsi, was pelted with an egg whilst on a visit to Luton with a Tory election candidate.
Gavin Reid was charged under the Public Order Act 1986. It was alleged that he caused Miss Sayeeda Warsi 'harassment, alarm or distress'.
However, District Judge Elizabeth-Roscoe said she could not be sure that Miss Sayeeda Warsi had 'felt any harassment, alarm or distress'.
Notwithstanding that guilt requires a judge or jury to be certain beyond all reasonable doubt, District Judge Elizabeth-Roscoe decided to find Gavin Reid guilty. However, the judge did not find him guilty as charged. Rather, she decided to invent a new criminal offence namely, "irritating and angering Miss Sayeeda's companions".
District Judge Elizabeth-Roscoe then sentenced Gavin Reid to a sentence of 6 weeks imprisonment.
It is contended that even if the whole thing had been legal from start to finish, it did not warrant a term of imprisonment. And yet, Gavin Reid had been remanded into custody for a period of 2 months. Therefore, he had already served longer in prison on Remand than the actual punishment awarded by the judge!
Contrast with this case...
Tory leader David Cameron laughed off being hit by an egg while out electioneering today, dismissing it as the "first of the campaign".
Mr Cameron was struck on the shoulder as he emerged from answering students' questions during a visit to a college in Cornwall.
Having been confronted with a giant chicken yesterday, Mr Cameron joked: "Now I know which came first - the chicken not the egg."
The Tory leader was hit as he emerged from Cornwall College Saltash.
The egg was thrown by a student wearing a hoodie who was inside the building as Mr Cameron was about to walk out.
It glanced off his shoulder and splattered on the jacket of a police officer beside him, while the yolk also stained Mr Cameron's white shirt.
Eye-witnesses said the young man who threw the egg was immediately led away.
The student was arrested and then quickly released after police established he did not have any more missiles with him, A Tory aide said.
The Tory party's token Paki, Miss Sayeeda Warsi, was pelted with an egg whilst on a visit to Luton with a Tory election candidate.
Gavin Reid was charged under the Public Order Act 1986. It was alleged that he caused Miss Sayeeda Warsi 'harassment, alarm or distress'.
However, District Judge Elizabeth-Roscoe said she could not be sure that Miss Sayeeda Warsi had 'felt any harassment, alarm or distress'.
Notwithstanding that guilt requires a judge or jury to be certain beyond all reasonable doubt, District Judge Elizabeth-Roscoe decided to find Gavin Reid guilty. However, the judge did not find him guilty as charged. Rather, she decided to invent a new criminal offence namely, "irritating and angering Miss Sayeeda's companions".
District Judge Elizabeth-Roscoe then sentenced Gavin Reid to a sentence of 6 weeks imprisonment.
It is contended that even if the whole thing had been legal from start to finish, it did not warrant a term of imprisonment. And yet, Gavin Reid had been remanded into custody for a period of 2 months. Therefore, he had already served longer in prison on Remand than the actual punishment awarded by the judge!
Contrast with this case...
Tory leader David Cameron laughed off being hit by an egg while out electioneering today, dismissing it as the "first of the campaign".
Mr Cameron was struck on the shoulder as he emerged from answering students' questions during a visit to a college in Cornwall.
Having been confronted with a giant chicken yesterday, Mr Cameron joked: "Now I know which came first - the chicken not the egg."
The Tory leader was hit as he emerged from Cornwall College Saltash.
The egg was thrown by a student wearing a hoodie who was inside the building as Mr Cameron was about to walk out.
It glanced off his shoulder and splattered on the jacket of a police officer beside him, while the yolk also stained Mr Cameron's white shirt.
Eye-witnesses said the young man who threw the egg was immediately led away.
The student was arrested and then quickly released after police established he did not have any more missiles with him, A Tory aide said.
Ex-Labour MPs and Tory peer lose expenses appeals
Ex-Labour MPs and Tory peer lose expenses appeals
Three former Labour MPs and an ex-Tory peer facing expenses fraud allegations have lost appeals over a ruling that they are not protected by parliamentary privilege from prosecution.
Elliott Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine and Lord Hanningfield had argued at the Court of Appeal that only Parliament could hear their case.
The four all deny charges of false accounting over their expenses.
The charges carry a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment.
The men had appealed against a ruling in June by Mr Justice Saunders sitting at Southwark Crown Court in central London.
The judge had rejected arguments that they were protected by parliamentary privilege and should be dealt with by Parliament alone.
The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, sitting with Lord Neuberger and Sir Anthony May, agreed with the judge's ruling.
What is the difference between a common criminal and a House of Commons criminal?
Three former Labour MPs and an ex-Tory peer facing expenses fraud allegations have lost appeals over a ruling that they are not protected by parliamentary privilege from prosecution.
Elliott Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine and Lord Hanningfield had argued at the Court of Appeal that only Parliament could hear their case.
The four all deny charges of false accounting over their expenses.
The charges carry a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment.
The men had appealed against a ruling in June by Mr Justice Saunders sitting at Southwark Crown Court in central London.
The judge had rejected arguments that they were protected by parliamentary privilege and should be dealt with by Parliament alone.
The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, sitting with Lord Neuberger and Sir Anthony May, agreed with the judge's ruling.
What is the difference between a common criminal and a House of Commons criminal?
Gangster Arran Coghlan gets away with murder 3 times!
Gangster Arran Coghlan gets away with murder 3 times!
Typically BBC euphemism here: Cheshire businessman cleared of murder for third time
A businessman accused of killing a man at his Cheshire mansion has had murder charges against him dropped - the third time he has been cleared of murder.
Arran Coghlan was accused of shooting dead Stephen Akinyemi in a fight at his £2m home in Alderley Edge in February.
But prosecutors told Liverpool Crown Court they were dropping the charges because they could not prove he had not been acting in self-defence.
Mr Coghlan, 39, will now be released from prison.
Mr Akinyemi, of Cheetham Hill, Manchester, was discovered in the bathroom of Coghlan's home on Brook Lane.
The defendant was injured in the fight but Mr Akinyemi - who was known to police - was shot in the head and stabbed to the upper body, despite wearing a stab vest.
Members of Mr Coghlan's family were taken into protective custody after Mr Akinyemi's death.
Mr Coghlan was cleared in 1996 of shooting Chris Little dead at the wheel of his Mercedes in Marple, Stockport.
Seven years later Mr Coghlan stood trial for the murder of drug dealer David Barnshaw, who was kidnapped and forced to drink petrol before being burned alive in the back of a car in Stockport in 2001. He was again cleared.
And, what's an off duty police officer from Liverpool doing getting involved in a pub fight?
Police officer questioned over Formby pub fight death
Typically BBC euphemism here: Cheshire businessman cleared of murder for third time
A businessman accused of killing a man at his Cheshire mansion has had murder charges against him dropped - the third time he has been cleared of murder.
Arran Coghlan was accused of shooting dead Stephen Akinyemi in a fight at his £2m home in Alderley Edge in February.
But prosecutors told Liverpool Crown Court they were dropping the charges because they could not prove he had not been acting in self-defence.
Mr Coghlan, 39, will now be released from prison.
Mr Akinyemi, of Cheetham Hill, Manchester, was discovered in the bathroom of Coghlan's home on Brook Lane.
The defendant was injured in the fight but Mr Akinyemi - who was known to police - was shot in the head and stabbed to the upper body, despite wearing a stab vest.
Members of Mr Coghlan's family were taken into protective custody after Mr Akinyemi's death.
Mr Coghlan was cleared in 1996 of shooting Chris Little dead at the wheel of his Mercedes in Marple, Stockport.
Seven years later Mr Coghlan stood trial for the murder of drug dealer David Barnshaw, who was kidnapped and forced to drink petrol before being burned alive in the back of a car in Stockport in 2001. He was again cleared.
And, what's an off duty police officer from Liverpool doing getting involved in a pub fight?
Police officer questioned over Formby pub fight death
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Political assassination of Shane Greer
Political assassination of Shane Greer
“At the 1993 Conservative Party Conference, Major began the "Back to Basics" campaign, which he intended to be about the economy, education, policing, and other such issues. However, it was interpreted by many (including Conservative cabinet ministers) as being about personal morality. As a result, it disastrously back-fired on him by providing an excuse for the British media to expose "sleaze" within the Conservative Party and, most damagingly, within the Cabinet itself”.
Shane Greer has followed in Major’s footsteps with his own kind of goosesteps on personal morality. Therefore laying himself open to scrutiny upon his claim of moral superiority.
I first came across the name of Shane Greer on 18 Doughty Street. “Tim Montgomerie suddenly left 18 Doughty Street around March 2007 to work on other products and was replaced by Shane Greer, who became a full-time presenter at the station whilst also acting as Executive Director for Young Britons' Foundation”.
The YBF has been accused of being a neo-Nazi organisation with such as Donal Blaney being involved.
“The YBF launched a nationwide leaflet and video campaign against a hung Parliament, that suggested such an outcome could cause unemployment to hit 5 million, Britain to lose its place on the UN security council, and the BNP to eventually win 20 seats in the House of Commons if proportional representation is introduced as a result.
Huhne said yesterday it was a "co-ordinated, expensively funded and probably illegal smear operation with links right to the top of the Conservative party".
The Lib Dems believe the 500,000-leaflet campaign would have cost more than £10,000, the limit before you have to register with the Electoral Commission, and could therefore be illegal”.
Might 18 Doughty Street end up poisoning the well of British Politics?
Shane Greer was born into a dysfunctional family. Broken Britain. Damaged by Thatcherism. Now the Tories appear to seek to repair the damage with sticking plaster. This abusive childhood must have left its impression upon the wannabe Shane Greer. He falls into the “I’m a Celebrity Get Me On There” category. Trying to make his mark but leaving just a skid mark in his pants! He’s really shit. His thinking is too inward looking, therefore too narrow, and becomes over sensitive to criticisms just like his mentor Iain Dale. In fact, all those involved in 18 DS (with perhaps the exception of Mike Rouse) became contaminated.
For example, Link.
So, it is easy to see where Shane Greer gets his mistaken belief of moral superiority from.
I challenge this claim to be morally superior.
Over to you Shane…
“At the 1993 Conservative Party Conference, Major began the "Back to Basics" campaign, which he intended to be about the economy, education, policing, and other such issues. However, it was interpreted by many (including Conservative cabinet ministers) as being about personal morality. As a result, it disastrously back-fired on him by providing an excuse for the British media to expose "sleaze" within the Conservative Party and, most damagingly, within the Cabinet itself”.
Shane Greer has followed in Major’s footsteps with his own kind of goosesteps on personal morality. Therefore laying himself open to scrutiny upon his claim of moral superiority.
I first came across the name of Shane Greer on 18 Doughty Street. “Tim Montgomerie suddenly left 18 Doughty Street around March 2007 to work on other products and was replaced by Shane Greer, who became a full-time presenter at the station whilst also acting as Executive Director for Young Britons' Foundation”.
The YBF has been accused of being a neo-Nazi organisation with such as Donal Blaney being involved.
“The YBF launched a nationwide leaflet and video campaign against a hung Parliament, that suggested such an outcome could cause unemployment to hit 5 million, Britain to lose its place on the UN security council, and the BNP to eventually win 20 seats in the House of Commons if proportional representation is introduced as a result.
Huhne said yesterday it was a "co-ordinated, expensively funded and probably illegal smear operation with links right to the top of the Conservative party".
The Lib Dems believe the 500,000-leaflet campaign would have cost more than £10,000, the limit before you have to register with the Electoral Commission, and could therefore be illegal”.
Might 18 Doughty Street end up poisoning the well of British Politics?
Shane Greer was born into a dysfunctional family. Broken Britain. Damaged by Thatcherism. Now the Tories appear to seek to repair the damage with sticking plaster. This abusive childhood must have left its impression upon the wannabe Shane Greer. He falls into the “I’m a Celebrity Get Me On There” category. Trying to make his mark but leaving just a skid mark in his pants! He’s really shit. His thinking is too inward looking, therefore too narrow, and becomes over sensitive to criticisms just like his mentor Iain Dale. In fact, all those involved in 18 DS (with perhaps the exception of Mike Rouse) became contaminated.
For example, Link.
So, it is easy to see where Shane Greer gets his mistaken belief of moral superiority from.
I challenge this claim to be morally superior.
Over to you Shane…
Talks over future of prison
Talks over future of prison
The Ministry of Justice is in discussions over the future of Lancaster Castle prison.
The category C prison houses 238 offenders in a medieval castle, which makes it costly and difficult to run as a modern training prison.
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice said:
'We have entered discussions with the Duchy of Lancaster and the local council about the future of HMP Lancaster Castle because while it is performing well, it is outdated and expensive to run.
'If an agreement is reached to return the prison to the Duchy of Lancaster, which owns the site, directly employed NOMS staff will be redeployed and we will make arrangements to place prisoners in more suitable accommodation.
'We need prisons to be places where staff are able to effectively rehabilitate prisoners to stop them reoffending, and where capacity requirements are met more efficiently to improve value for money for the taxpayer.'
Soon Daiga will be able to get her wish...
The Ministry of Justice is in discussions over the future of Lancaster Castle prison.
The category C prison houses 238 offenders in a medieval castle, which makes it costly and difficult to run as a modern training prison.
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice said:
'We have entered discussions with the Duchy of Lancaster and the local council about the future of HMP Lancaster Castle because while it is performing well, it is outdated and expensive to run.
'If an agreement is reached to return the prison to the Duchy of Lancaster, which owns the site, directly employed NOMS staff will be redeployed and we will make arrangements to place prisoners in more suitable accommodation.
'We need prisons to be places where staff are able to effectively rehabilitate prisoners to stop them reoffending, and where capacity requirements are met more efficiently to improve value for money for the taxpayer.'
Soon Daiga will be able to get her wish...
Government departments spend £6m on search engines
Government departments spend £6m on search engines
Four government departments spent almost £6m ensuring their websites appeared on search engine results pages in the last two financial years, according to newly released figures.
The Department of Health was the biggest spender on search engine optimisation, as the technique is called, running up a bill of £4.4m in "paid search" fees.
It said the money was spent supporting campaigns on smoking and the flu pandemic.
Organisations can pay search engines to ensure their websites appear at the top of users' searches. They are often charged for each person who accesses their sites via the link.
The Department for Communities and Local Government spent over £750,000 promoting campaign websites including those for Home Information Packs, Eco Towns and Energy Performance Certificates.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change spent more than £309,000 last year. The Department of the environment, food and rural affairs (Defra) spent almost £500,000.
Four government departments spent almost £6m ensuring their websites appeared on search engine results pages in the last two financial years, according to newly released figures.
The Department of Health was the biggest spender on search engine optimisation, as the technique is called, running up a bill of £4.4m in "paid search" fees.
It said the money was spent supporting campaigns on smoking and the flu pandemic.
Organisations can pay search engines to ensure their websites appear at the top of users' searches. They are often charged for each person who accesses their sites via the link.
The Department for Communities and Local Government spent over £750,000 promoting campaign websites including those for Home Information Packs, Eco Towns and Energy Performance Certificates.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change spent more than £309,000 last year. The Department of the environment, food and rural affairs (Defra) spent almost £500,000.
Roman convicts driving rickshaws as part of rehab
Roman convicts driving rickshaws as part of rehab
The problems of congested roads and prisoner rehabilitation are being tackled at the same time in a project in Rome.
More than a dozen men, either current or former convicts, have become rickshaw drivers in two areas of the city.
The authorities say the men, who have convictions for robbery and other serious offences, have been carefully chosen and pose no threat to anyone.
Duncan Kennedy reports from Rome.
The problems of congested roads and prisoner rehabilitation are being tackled at the same time in a project in Rome.
More than a dozen men, either current or former convicts, have become rickshaw drivers in two areas of the city.
The authorities say the men, who have convictions for robbery and other serious offences, have been carefully chosen and pose no threat to anyone.
Duncan Kennedy reports from Rome.
Foreign Office spent £13m on private school fees
Foreign Office spent £13m on private school fees
The Foreign Office spent more than £13 million sending the children of British diplomats to private schools last year, it was revealed.
The bill to the taxpayer for officers serving overseas was £5.8 million and £7.4 million was spent on UK-based staff, official figures show.
The total spent in 2009-10 on the continuity of education allowance was for the 521 children of 339 staff. Those staff represent about 6% of the department's workforce.
Separately, 48 members of the Department for International Development on overseas postings received payments worth £1.3 million and these were used to pay to send children to private schools including Fettes College, Winchester College and Marlborough College.
The details of the allowances were unearthed by Labour's Gloria De Piero in response to written parliamentary questions.
In reply, Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt said diplomats had to be prepared to serve anywhere in the world, often at very short notice.
He added: "Members of the diplomatic service pay UK tax wherever they work and are entitled to have their children educated at public expense. Most parents prefer to take their children with them on posting, but in some countries we do not permit staff to take their children either for health or security reasons. In others, local schools of an acceptable standard are not available."
Diplomats kids are entitled to public money to go to private schools? It is claimed that this right stems from their parents paying UK tax. So, what about everybody else who pays UK tax but cannot afford private school fees?
At a time when the nation is suffering from public spending cut-backs, the elite are protected at public expense. It's a scandal!
The Foreign Office spent more than £13 million sending the children of British diplomats to private schools last year, it was revealed.
The bill to the taxpayer for officers serving overseas was £5.8 million and £7.4 million was spent on UK-based staff, official figures show.
The total spent in 2009-10 on the continuity of education allowance was for the 521 children of 339 staff. Those staff represent about 6% of the department's workforce.
Separately, 48 members of the Department for International Development on overseas postings received payments worth £1.3 million and these were used to pay to send children to private schools including Fettes College, Winchester College and Marlborough College.
The details of the allowances were unearthed by Labour's Gloria De Piero in response to written parliamentary questions.
In reply, Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt said diplomats had to be prepared to serve anywhere in the world, often at very short notice.
He added: "Members of the diplomatic service pay UK tax wherever they work and are entitled to have their children educated at public expense. Most parents prefer to take their children with them on posting, but in some countries we do not permit staff to take their children either for health or security reasons. In others, local schools of an acceptable standard are not available."
Diplomats kids are entitled to public money to go to private schools? It is claimed that this right stems from their parents paying UK tax. So, what about everybody else who pays UK tax but cannot afford private school fees?
At a time when the nation is suffering from public spending cut-backs, the elite are protected at public expense. It's a scandal!
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Time to 'move beyond' Asbos, says home secretary May
Time to 'move beyond' Asbos, says home secretary May
The home secretary has said it is "time to move beyond" Asbos, signalling the possible end of their use in England and Wales.
Launching a review of the system, Theresa May said it was time to "stop tolerating" bad behaviour.
More than half of Asbos in England and Wales were breached from 2000 to 2008, government figures show.
But Labour, which devised Asbos, said they had made a "huge contribution" to cutting crime.
The Asbo - the "anti-social behaviour order" - was brought in to deal with persistent minor offenders whose actions might not otherwise have been punished.
It imposes restrictions, such as banning people from a local area or preventing them from swearing in public. If an Asbo is breached, offenders can face jail.
The home secretary has said it is "time to move beyond" Asbos, signalling the possible end of their use in England and Wales.
Launching a review of the system, Theresa May said it was time to "stop tolerating" bad behaviour.
More than half of Asbos in England and Wales were breached from 2000 to 2008, government figures show.
But Labour, which devised Asbos, said they had made a "huge contribution" to cutting crime.
The Asbo - the "anti-social behaviour order" - was brought in to deal with persistent minor offenders whose actions might not otherwise have been punished.
It imposes restrictions, such as banning people from a local area or preventing them from swearing in public. If an Asbo is breached, offenders can face jail.
Scandal of British Gas 98% profits rise!
Scandal of British Gas 98% profits rise!
Consumer Focus said such a jump in profits would "sound alarm bells".
Last year my gas prices rose by 107%!
Is it any wonder that gas companies profits have gone sky high?
Now that it no longer is necessary to charge such high prices because it costs the companies less, they should cut the charges to customers back to near what it was before the 107% rise!
Consumer Focus said such a jump in profits would "sound alarm bells".
Last year my gas prices rose by 107%!
Is it any wonder that gas companies profits have gone sky high?
Now that it no longer is necessary to charge such high prices because it costs the companies less, they should cut the charges to customers back to near what it was before the 107% rise!
The courts are open but justice is a closed book
The courts are open but justice is a closed book
Heather Brooke
We are denied even the barest details of what goes on in supposedly public legal proceedings
Last week I had an encounter with open justice. I was attending the information tribunal hearing of a friend who is trying to investigate allegations that the Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust had a history of silencing whistleblowing staff by offering them public money to sign “gagging” contracts.
I’ve been to the tribunal before when I was fighting for the release of MPs’ expenses and that’s when I discovered the only record of proceedings of this so-called “open” people’s court (the tribunals are meant to be a less formal, more accessible form of justice) were my scribbled notes. When it came time to write a script for a dramatised TV version of the hearing, my notes and those of other reporters were all we had to go on. I’d asked at the time if I could tape-record the hearing and was told “no”.
This time I decided to press harder. The rhetoric of the English legal system is that justice must be seen to be done. So why are the public forbidden — under threat of jail — from recording a verbatim account of proceedings? Not only that, rules are so opaque and obscure that court reporters struggle to report cases with any degree of accuracy or depth. And that’s when there is a reporter in court at all: there used to be 25 reporters covering national courts for the Press Association; by 2009 there were four.
Anisa Dhanji, the judge, said she was concerned with the hearing being recorded. “Usually such requests are made in advance so the tribunal can maintain the necessary degree of control over the transcript.”
“Control” is exactly what a court shouldn’t be exerting. Once it is decided that it is open, there should be no restriction on how that open hearing is processed. She went on to say that she’d allow me to record now but I’d have to wait for a future ruling before I could “use” the recording.
The next day in court the judge announced she’d made her ruling. “Please turn your tape recorder off,” she said, looking sternly at me over her glasses. I did so.
“I have made my ruling. As you will no doubt be aware it is a contempt of court under Section 9 to make any kind of recording for any purpose including with a view to publication or transcription. It is for the court alone to decide if a recording takes place and the court must have control of the recording. To do otherwise is fraught with difficulty. Firstly there is a risk of manipulation. Secondly it puts at a disadvantage other parties. Any recording you have made thus far must be deleted and cannot be used in any way including transcription.”
At least that’s the gist of what she said because here’s the final irony: when I asked if I could have a copy of her ruling she said there was no written record of it. To close a court, effectively, from public scrutiny in a ruling of which there is no record strikes me as something straight out of Kafka.
The simple answer is to allow tape recorders for all: no party is disadvantaged and an “official” recording is there for checking. This is how it works in other countries. But that is to ignore the root objection of the courts: that they are losing control of how court proceedings are presented to the public.
The courts’ refusal to allow people to tape-record benefits a few private transcription companies whom the court approves in cosy deals. These people have exclusive rights to tape- record or listen to official recordings and then transcribe them. The cost to the individual of hiring them is about£150-£250 per hour of typing.
Many trials in the upper courts are now officially recorded, yet these records are not accessible to the public. All High Court hearings have been digitally recorded since February 2010. When I spoke to the court’s governance officer he told me there were no plans to make these accessible directly to the public. Why not?
I could go on. You might like to know whether the builder you’re going to give your keys to has any convictions for theft or if the company you’re about to do business with has a record for fraud. Tough. This information is not a click of a button away. Instead you’ll have to know the details of the case before you can call up any records — even though it’s the existence of cases that you’re trying to find in the first place. It’s Catch-22. If you do know some of the details you then have to battle petty officials across a number of court offices all for the simple purpose of accessing information that is supposedly public.
There are three main things that would make the courts useful to the public: (a) knowing by name who is on trial (the court list); (b) why (the particulars of claim); and (c) the result (the verdict, sentence or settlement). Yet trying to get any, let alone all, of these is fraught with difficulty.
We have a justice system paid for by the common people but whose proceedings are available only to the rich, powerful or privileged. Let’s not pretend that this is justice for all.
Heather Brooke is the author of The Silent State (Heinemann)
Heather Brooke
We are denied even the barest details of what goes on in supposedly public legal proceedings
Last week I had an encounter with open justice. I was attending the information tribunal hearing of a friend who is trying to investigate allegations that the Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust had a history of silencing whistleblowing staff by offering them public money to sign “gagging” contracts.
I’ve been to the tribunal before when I was fighting for the release of MPs’ expenses and that’s when I discovered the only record of proceedings of this so-called “open” people’s court (the tribunals are meant to be a less formal, more accessible form of justice) were my scribbled notes. When it came time to write a script for a dramatised TV version of the hearing, my notes and those of other reporters were all we had to go on. I’d asked at the time if I could tape-record the hearing and was told “no”.
This time I decided to press harder. The rhetoric of the English legal system is that justice must be seen to be done. So why are the public forbidden — under threat of jail — from recording a verbatim account of proceedings? Not only that, rules are so opaque and obscure that court reporters struggle to report cases with any degree of accuracy or depth. And that’s when there is a reporter in court at all: there used to be 25 reporters covering national courts for the Press Association; by 2009 there were four.
Anisa Dhanji, the judge, said she was concerned with the hearing being recorded. “Usually such requests are made in advance so the tribunal can maintain the necessary degree of control over the transcript.”
“Control” is exactly what a court shouldn’t be exerting. Once it is decided that it is open, there should be no restriction on how that open hearing is processed. She went on to say that she’d allow me to record now but I’d have to wait for a future ruling before I could “use” the recording.
The next day in court the judge announced she’d made her ruling. “Please turn your tape recorder off,” she said, looking sternly at me over her glasses. I did so.
“I have made my ruling. As you will no doubt be aware it is a contempt of court under Section 9 to make any kind of recording for any purpose including with a view to publication or transcription. It is for the court alone to decide if a recording takes place and the court must have control of the recording. To do otherwise is fraught with difficulty. Firstly there is a risk of manipulation. Secondly it puts at a disadvantage other parties. Any recording you have made thus far must be deleted and cannot be used in any way including transcription.”
At least that’s the gist of what she said because here’s the final irony: when I asked if I could have a copy of her ruling she said there was no written record of it. To close a court, effectively, from public scrutiny in a ruling of which there is no record strikes me as something straight out of Kafka.
The simple answer is to allow tape recorders for all: no party is disadvantaged and an “official” recording is there for checking. This is how it works in other countries. But that is to ignore the root objection of the courts: that they are losing control of how court proceedings are presented to the public.
The courts’ refusal to allow people to tape-record benefits a few private transcription companies whom the court approves in cosy deals. These people have exclusive rights to tape- record or listen to official recordings and then transcribe them. The cost to the individual of hiring them is about£150-£250 per hour of typing.
Many trials in the upper courts are now officially recorded, yet these records are not accessible to the public. All High Court hearings have been digitally recorded since February 2010. When I spoke to the court’s governance officer he told me there were no plans to make these accessible directly to the public. Why not?
I could go on. You might like to know whether the builder you’re going to give your keys to has any convictions for theft or if the company you’re about to do business with has a record for fraud. Tough. This information is not a click of a button away. Instead you’ll have to know the details of the case before you can call up any records — even though it’s the existence of cases that you’re trying to find in the first place. It’s Catch-22. If you do know some of the details you then have to battle petty officials across a number of court offices all for the simple purpose of accessing information that is supposedly public.
There are three main things that would make the courts useful to the public: (a) knowing by name who is on trial (the court list); (b) why (the particulars of claim); and (c) the result (the verdict, sentence or settlement). Yet trying to get any, let alone all, of these is fraught with difficulty.
We have a justice system paid for by the common people but whose proceedings are available only to the rich, powerful or privileged. Let’s not pretend that this is justice for all.
Heather Brooke is the author of The Silent State (Heinemann)
Pictures of the day: 28 July 2010
Pictures of the day: 28 July 2010
A polar bear dives into the water at Columbus Zoo and Aquarium in Powell, Ohio
Picture: AP
A four-day-old Zedonk, a rare cross between a zebra and a donkey, stands next to her mother at the Chestatee Wildlife Preserve in Lumpkin County, Georgia
Picture: AP
A pair of fledgling barn swallows plead for breakfast from a perch above the seventh hole at the Eugene, Oregon, Country Club. Picture: AP
A polar bear dives into the water at Columbus Zoo and Aquarium in Powell, Ohio
Picture: AP
A four-day-old Zedonk, a rare cross between a zebra and a donkey, stands next to her mother at the Chestatee Wildlife Preserve in Lumpkin County, Georgia
Picture: AP
A pair of fledgling barn swallows plead for breakfast from a perch above the seventh hole at the Eugene, Oregon, Country Club. Picture: AP
Little Hitler and Little Churchill
Little Hitler and Little Churchill
Little Hitler...
A picture titled The Virgin of the Third Reich shows Hitler as a child cuddling up to the Virgin Mary. The painting is by Italian artist Giuseppe Veneziano, whose works feature in a show in Versilia, Italy. Picture: CATERS MNEWS
Little Churchill?
Following the death of the world's smallest man earlier this year another Chinese man has stepped forward hoping to claim the title. Huang Kaiquan, 40, of Sanjiang village, Hejiang County in southwest China's Sichuan province, measures only 2ft 5.91in (76 cm). This makes him just 1.4cm taller than He Pingping, who was just 2ft 5.37in (74.6cm) tall. He Pingping was officially recognised as the world's smallest man until his death in March this year at the age of just 21. Huang, who weighs just 12kg, the same as a three-year-old, is now hoping to claim the record. According to his mother [pictured with him] Cheng Fuxiu, Huang, or 'short brother' as he is known locally, was born in February 1970. He is the second child and only son and all the other family members are of normal height. Picture: QUIRKY CHINA NEWS / REX FEATURES
Little Hitler...
A picture titled The Virgin of the Third Reich shows Hitler as a child cuddling up to the Virgin Mary. The painting is by Italian artist Giuseppe Veneziano, whose works feature in a show in Versilia, Italy. Picture: CATERS MNEWS
Little Churchill?
Following the death of the world's smallest man earlier this year another Chinese man has stepped forward hoping to claim the title. Huang Kaiquan, 40, of Sanjiang village, Hejiang County in southwest China's Sichuan province, measures only 2ft 5.91in (76 cm). This makes him just 1.4cm taller than He Pingping, who was just 2ft 5.37in (74.6cm) tall. He Pingping was officially recognised as the world's smallest man until his death in March this year at the age of just 21. Huang, who weighs just 12kg, the same as a three-year-old, is now hoping to claim the record. According to his mother [pictured with him] Cheng Fuxiu, Huang, or 'short brother' as he is known locally, was born in February 1970. He is the second child and only son and all the other family members are of normal height. Picture: QUIRKY CHINA NEWS / REX FEATURES
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Law student disposes of father to have nooky with girlfriend
Law student disposes of father to have nooky with girlfriend
Don't worry, son, you can continue your law studies in prison like I did!
Don't worry, son, you can continue your law studies in prison like I did!
Is the MoJ dishonest or disingenuous on prisoners votes?
Is the MoJ dishonest or disingenuous on prisoners votes?
I am not sure whether the Ministry of Justice is being disingenuous with the publication of this..."Responding to human rights judgments Government Response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ Fifteenth Report of Session 2009-10 Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty July 2010 Cm 7892"? Or, whether the MoJ is being outright dishonest?
As the Report states:
"European Court of Human Rights judgments
The United Kingdom is obliged to implement judgments of the European Court of Human Rights under Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). The implementation – or “execution”, as it is described in the Convention – of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is overseen by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. This responsibility also results from Article 46".
The Association of Prisoners is presently the Prisoners Voice, and Prisoners Families Voices is the voice of the families of prisoners. Both organisations are joined in the condemnation of the previous government and the present government for thier failure to abide by the ECtHR decision in Hirst v UK (No2) the Prisoners Votes Case.
It's all about doing the right thing. The previous government had argued that prisoners had breached the social contrct, therefore they should be denied the franchise. The ECtHR rejected this line of argument. In any event, the UK has failed to abide by its contract with the Council of Europe to abide by the European Convention and ECtHR decisions. If this is not gross hypocrisy I do not know what is!
Just as bad in my eyes is the namby pamby approach taken by the JCHR. It should call a spade a spade! It is no good sweet talking a government which is being obstinate. The JCHR needs to be abandoned or given more powers of enforcement! Bear in mind that in Kenya a court ruled prisoners should have the vote and 3 days later the Electoral Commission was registering prisoners to vote! Why has the UK taken 5 years? It is time not only that the government implemented the Court judgment in Hirst No2 but also gave the public, the media and Parliament a truthful explanation for the inordinate delay!
"Prisoners’ voting rights (Hirst v UK; Smith v Electoral Registration Officer)
The European Court of Human Rights found29 that the United Kingdom’s prohibition on all convicted serving prisoners from voting breached Article 3 of the First Protocol (right to free elections).
The previous Government conducted a two stage consultation on how to approach the matter, and in the second consultation document proposed possible options for implementation based on sentence length. That consultation closed in September 2009 but the results were not published.
The JCHR said:
We are concerned that, despite the time taken to publish the second consultation, the Government’s proposals appear to take a very limited approach to the judgment in Hirst. As we noted earlier in this report, this type of approach can lead to further unnecessary litigation with the associated burden on the European Court of Human Rights and the taxpayer. We accept that the Grand Chamber left a broad discretion to the United Kingdom to determine how to remove the blanket ban. However, the Court stressed that withdrawal of the franchise is a very serious step and gave guidance on the types of offences which might rationally be connected with such a step. We are not persuaded that automatic disenfranchisement based upon a set period of custodial sentence can provide the “discernible link between the conduct and circumstances of the individual” and necessity for the removal of the right to vote required by the Grand Chamber. In our view, this approach will lead to a significant risk of further litigation.
Despite our concerns about the narrow nature of the Government’s approach, our overriding disappointment is at the lack of progress in this case. We regret that the Government has not yet published the outcome of its second consultation, which closed almost 6 months ago, in September 2009. This appears to show a lack of commitment on the part of the Government to proposing a solution for Parliament to consider.
It is now almost 5 years since the judgment of the Grand Chamber in Hirst v UK. The Government consultation was finally completed in September 2009. Since then, despite the imminent general election, the Government has not brought forward proposals for consideration by Parliament. We reiterate our view, often repeated, that the delay in this case has been unacceptable. (Paragraph 116)
So long as the Government continues to delay removal of the blanket ban on prisoner voting, it risks not only political embarrassment at the Council of Europe, but also the potentially significant cost of repeat litigation and any associated compensation.
29 Hirst v United Kingdom (No. 2), Application 74025/01, judgment of 6 October 2005; see also Smith v Scott [2007] CSIH 9.22
Responding to human rights judgments
The Government’s analysis is legally accurate. The continuing breach of international law identified in Hirst will not affect the legality of the forthcoming election for the purposes of domestic law. However, without reform the election will happen in a way which will inevitably breach the Convention rights of at least part of the prison population. This is in breach of the Government’s international obligation to secure for everyone within its jurisdiction the full enjoyment of those rights. We consider that the Government’s determination to draw clear distinctions between domestic legality and the ongoing breach of Convention rights shows a disappointing disregard for our international law obligations.
The Government is considering afresh the issue of prisoner voting rights. The issues raised are important and Ministers will be giving them full consideration. A fuller update will be provided to the Committee of Ministers at their meeting in September. Information provided at that meeting will be passed on to the Joint Committee, in line with usual practice relating to such updates. The approach to sharing information provided to the Committee of Ministers is discussed in more detail later in this paper".
I am not sure whether the Ministry of Justice is being disingenuous with the publication of this..."Responding to human rights judgments Government Response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ Fifteenth Report of Session 2009-10 Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty July 2010 Cm 7892"? Or, whether the MoJ is being outright dishonest?
As the Report states:
"European Court of Human Rights judgments
The United Kingdom is obliged to implement judgments of the European Court of Human Rights under Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). The implementation – or “execution”, as it is described in the Convention – of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is overseen by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. This responsibility also results from Article 46".
The Association of Prisoners is presently the Prisoners Voice, and Prisoners Families Voices is the voice of the families of prisoners. Both organisations are joined in the condemnation of the previous government and the present government for thier failure to abide by the ECtHR decision in Hirst v UK (No2) the Prisoners Votes Case.
It's all about doing the right thing. The previous government had argued that prisoners had breached the social contrct, therefore they should be denied the franchise. The ECtHR rejected this line of argument. In any event, the UK has failed to abide by its contract with the Council of Europe to abide by the European Convention and ECtHR decisions. If this is not gross hypocrisy I do not know what is!
Just as bad in my eyes is the namby pamby approach taken by the JCHR. It should call a spade a spade! It is no good sweet talking a government which is being obstinate. The JCHR needs to be abandoned or given more powers of enforcement! Bear in mind that in Kenya a court ruled prisoners should have the vote and 3 days later the Electoral Commission was registering prisoners to vote! Why has the UK taken 5 years? It is time not only that the government implemented the Court judgment in Hirst No2 but also gave the public, the media and Parliament a truthful explanation for the inordinate delay!
"Prisoners’ voting rights (Hirst v UK; Smith v Electoral Registration Officer)
The European Court of Human Rights found29 that the United Kingdom’s prohibition on all convicted serving prisoners from voting breached Article 3 of the First Protocol (right to free elections).
The previous Government conducted a two stage consultation on how to approach the matter, and in the second consultation document proposed possible options for implementation based on sentence length. That consultation closed in September 2009 but the results were not published.
The JCHR said:
We are concerned that, despite the time taken to publish the second consultation, the Government’s proposals appear to take a very limited approach to the judgment in Hirst. As we noted earlier in this report, this type of approach can lead to further unnecessary litigation with the associated burden on the European Court of Human Rights and the taxpayer. We accept that the Grand Chamber left a broad discretion to the United Kingdom to determine how to remove the blanket ban. However, the Court stressed that withdrawal of the franchise is a very serious step and gave guidance on the types of offences which might rationally be connected with such a step. We are not persuaded that automatic disenfranchisement based upon a set period of custodial sentence can provide the “discernible link between the conduct and circumstances of the individual” and necessity for the removal of the right to vote required by the Grand Chamber. In our view, this approach will lead to a significant risk of further litigation.
Despite our concerns about the narrow nature of the Government’s approach, our overriding disappointment is at the lack of progress in this case. We regret that the Government has not yet published the outcome of its second consultation, which closed almost 6 months ago, in September 2009. This appears to show a lack of commitment on the part of the Government to proposing a solution for Parliament to consider.
It is now almost 5 years since the judgment of the Grand Chamber in Hirst v UK. The Government consultation was finally completed in September 2009. Since then, despite the imminent general election, the Government has not brought forward proposals for consideration by Parliament. We reiterate our view, often repeated, that the delay in this case has been unacceptable. (Paragraph 116)
So long as the Government continues to delay removal of the blanket ban on prisoner voting, it risks not only political embarrassment at the Council of Europe, but also the potentially significant cost of repeat litigation and any associated compensation.
29 Hirst v United Kingdom (No. 2), Application 74025/01, judgment of 6 October 2005; see also Smith v Scott [2007] CSIH 9.22
Responding to human rights judgments
The Government’s analysis is legally accurate. The continuing breach of international law identified in Hirst will not affect the legality of the forthcoming election for the purposes of domestic law. However, without reform the election will happen in a way which will inevitably breach the Convention rights of at least part of the prison population. This is in breach of the Government’s international obligation to secure for everyone within its jurisdiction the full enjoyment of those rights. We consider that the Government’s determination to draw clear distinctions between domestic legality and the ongoing breach of Convention rights shows a disappointing disregard for our international law obligations.
The Government is considering afresh the issue of prisoner voting rights. The issues raised are important and Ministers will be giving them full consideration. A fuller update will be provided to the Committee of Ministers at their meeting in September. Information provided at that meeting will be passed on to the Joint Committee, in line with usual practice relating to such updates. The approach to sharing information provided to the Committee of Ministers is discussed in more detail later in this paper".
‘Jailbreaking’ of iPhones approved by US government
‘Jailbreaking’ of iPhones approved by US government
The US Library of Congress has ruled that it is legal to hack a mobile phone to use different apps, services and network providers
Mobile phone users will now be able to legally 'jailbreak' their handset to run on any network, or to install any apps and services they like, thanks to a ruling from the US Library of Congress Photo: EPA
The ruling means that smartphone owners will be able to “hack” their phones, a process known as “jailbreaking”, in order to run applications and software without the approval of the phone’s maker.
They will also be able to change their service provider, allowing consumers to use whichever network they want, regardless of whether a handset maker has signed an exclusivity deal with a carrier partner.
"The ruling also means that people who circumvent copy protection on DVDs to extract short clips to make in to “mash-up” videos – such as the popular Downfall internet memes – are no longer violating the law, as long as the resultant video is for non-commercial purposes".
Somebody should do a Hitler's Downfall of Apple's iPhone...
The US Library of Congress has ruled that it is legal to hack a mobile phone to use different apps, services and network providers
Mobile phone users will now be able to legally 'jailbreak' their handset to run on any network, or to install any apps and services they like, thanks to a ruling from the US Library of Congress Photo: EPA The ruling means that smartphone owners will be able to “hack” their phones, a process known as “jailbreaking”, in order to run applications and software without the approval of the phone’s maker.
They will also be able to change their service provider, allowing consumers to use whichever network they want, regardless of whether a handset maker has signed an exclusivity deal with a carrier partner.
"The ruling also means that people who circumvent copy protection on DVDs to extract short clips to make in to “mash-up” videos – such as the popular Downfall internet memes – are no longer violating the law, as long as the resultant video is for non-commercial purposes".
Somebody should do a Hitler's Downfall of Apple's iPhone...
Recycling: One man's rubbish...
Recycling: One man's rubbish...
For the last couple of days, when I have taken Rocky for his walk in Pearson Park, I have noticed a white duvet stuffed into a dustbin near Beverley Road. This morning I decided to investigate further, because I could not get over the fact that it appeared to be in a better and cleaner condition than mine and yet it had been thrown out. As I pulled it out of the dustbin for inspection, it appeared to be almost new with only a couple of small highlighter pen ink blotches on it. It is for a double bed and has a 10.5 tog label. Beneath this I also found a plastic dustpan and brush, again almost new and in a lot better condition than my broken dustpan and tatty old brush. I went home happy with my finds. Not long afterwards, Rocky started to bark and upon looking out of my bedroom window I saw that the dustbinmen had arrived...
For the last couple of days, when I have taken Rocky for his walk in Pearson Park, I have noticed a white duvet stuffed into a dustbin near Beverley Road. This morning I decided to investigate further, because I could not get over the fact that it appeared to be in a better and cleaner condition than mine and yet it had been thrown out. As I pulled it out of the dustbin for inspection, it appeared to be almost new with only a couple of small highlighter pen ink blotches on it. It is for a double bed and has a 10.5 tog label. Beneath this I also found a plastic dustpan and brush, again almost new and in a lot better condition than my broken dustpan and tatty old brush. I went home happy with my finds. Not long afterwards, Rocky started to bark and upon looking out of my bedroom window I saw that the dustbinmen had arrived...
Monday, July 26, 2010
Blunt speaking, dull media response and knee-jerking Dave Cameron!
Blunt speaking, dull media response and knee-jerking Dave Cameron!
I have done a guest post at Old Holborn blog.
Related content...
Link.
I have done a guest post at Old Holborn blog.
Related content...
Link.
Convicts used as hit squad by Mexican prison governor
Convicts used as hit squad by Mexican prison governor
Guards and officials at a prison in northern Mexico let inmates out, lent them guns and sent them off in official vehicles to carry out drug-related killings, including the massacre of 17 people last week, prosecutors claim.
After carrying out the killings the inmates would return to their cells, the Attorney General's Office said.
Ricardo Najera, spokesman for the Attorney General's office, said: "According to witnesses, the inmates were allowed to leave with authorisation of the prison director ... to carry out instructions for revenge attacks using official vehicles and using guards' weapons for executions."
The director of the prison in Gomez Palacio, in Durango state, Mexico, and three other officials were placed under a form of house arrest pending further investigation. No charges have yet been filed.
Guards and officials at a prison in northern Mexico let inmates out, lent them guns and sent them off in official vehicles to carry out drug-related killings, including the massacre of 17 people last week, prosecutors claim.
After carrying out the killings the inmates would return to their cells, the Attorney General's Office said.
Ricardo Najera, spokesman for the Attorney General's office, said: "According to witnesses, the inmates were allowed to leave with authorisation of the prison director ... to carry out instructions for revenge attacks using official vehicles and using guards' weapons for executions."
The director of the prison in Gomez Palacio, in Durango state, Mexico, and three other officials were placed under a form of house arrest pending further investigation. No charges have yet been filed.
Home Secretary, Teresa May, guilty of unlawful policy
Home Secretary, Teresa May, guilty of unlawful policy
Deportation fast-track system for asylum seekers ruled illegal
Medical Justice, a group that helps detainees, wins case against government over removal of people with little or no notice
Detainees at Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre. Photograph: David Levene
"A fast-track process for deporting failed asylum-seekers, which gives them little or no notice of their immediate removal, is unlawful, the high court ruled today.
The decision will have an impact on Home Office deportation practices and could lead to more last minute, legal challenges on behalf of those fighting to remain in the UK".
Comment: Teresa May should resign for allowing a lawful policy to be operated unlawfully. It is quite clear that a policy only to be used in exceptional circumstances, became the norm for administrative convenience. It is a shame that the judge allowed the Home Office to waste more taxpayers money on an appeal. For a policy which was initially used in 24 cases (even this figure is high for exceptional circumstances), to rise to being used in 145 cases, belies the term exceptional circumstances. In truth, it had become common practice. In my view, the 72 hours notice should be during the working week so as not to be abused by those seeking to use the hours of the weekend to deny access to the court. Teresa May should resign for the unforgiveable attack upon the most vulnerable people. Shame!
Deportation fast-track system for asylum seekers ruled illegal
Medical Justice, a group that helps detainees, wins case against government over removal of people with little or no notice
Detainees at Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre. Photograph: David Levene"A fast-track process for deporting failed asylum-seekers, which gives them little or no notice of their immediate removal, is unlawful, the high court ruled today.
The decision will have an impact on Home Office deportation practices and could lead to more last minute, legal challenges on behalf of those fighting to remain in the UK".
Comment: Teresa May should resign for allowing a lawful policy to be operated unlawfully. It is quite clear that a policy only to be used in exceptional circumstances, became the norm for administrative convenience. It is a shame that the judge allowed the Home Office to waste more taxpayers money on an appeal. For a policy which was initially used in 24 cases (even this figure is high for exceptional circumstances), to rise to being used in 145 cases, belies the term exceptional circumstances. In truth, it had become common practice. In my view, the 72 hours notice should be during the working week so as not to be abused by those seeking to use the hours of the weekend to deny access to the court. Teresa May should resign for the unforgiveable attack upon the most vulnerable people. Shame!
East meets West (Part 3)
East meets West (Part 3)
Following on from this, and Blackpool: Dump of the West Coast!, I have pleasure in bringing you part three of the East meets West saga. Besides, there is no news worth reporting today!
In spite of the earlier photos of Blackpool, it was not all doom and gloom...
Following on from this, and Blackpool: Dump of the West Coast!, I have pleasure in bringing you part three of the East meets West saga. Besides, there is no news worth reporting today!
In spite of the earlier photos of Blackpool, it was not all doom and gloom...
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Animal pictures of the week: 23 July 2010
Animal pictures of the week: 23 July 2010
Six-week-old puppies, Marco and Malini, wear top hats to promote Top Dog Day, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Picture: NEWSPIX / REX FEATURES
Two Southeast Asian clouded leopard cubs are seen at Jardin des Plantes Zoological in Paris. The two female cubs, named Pati and Jaya, born recently made their first appearance in public. Picture: AP
A German Shepherd dog named Cholli raises puma cubs in the zoo in Samara, Russia
Picture: EPA
A photo issued by the Forestry Commission of a white squirrel, at Guisborough Forest near Middlesbrough on Teesside. Visitors spotted two albino grey squirrels in woodland at Guisborough Forest. Picture: DARREN CLARKE / FORESTRY COMMISSION / PA
A squirrel takes a drink from a garden swimming pool in Texas. Luckily the water in the pool isn't chlorinated. Picture: Karen Millward-Alston/Rex Features
Six-week-old puppies, Marco and Malini, wear top hats to promote Top Dog Day, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Picture: NEWSPIX / REX FEATURES
Two Southeast Asian clouded leopard cubs are seen at Jardin des Plantes Zoological in Paris. The two female cubs, named Pati and Jaya, born recently made their first appearance in public. Picture: AP
A German Shepherd dog named Cholli raises puma cubs in the zoo in Samara, Russia
Picture: EPA
A photo issued by the Forestry Commission of a white squirrel, at Guisborough Forest near Middlesbrough on Teesside. Visitors spotted two albino grey squirrels in woodland at Guisborough Forest. Picture: DARREN CLARKE / FORESTRY COMMISSION / PA
A squirrel takes a drink from a garden swimming pool in Texas. Luckily the water in the pool isn't chlorinated. Picture: Karen Millward-Alston/Rex Features
Crime software may help police predict violent offences
Crime software may help police predict violent offences
Minority Report-style technology being trialled by two British forces following success in the US
Two British police forces have begun trials of a sophisticated computer software package which aims to boost their efficiency by predicting where and when future crimes will take place.
The system, known as Crush (Criminal Reduction Utilising Statistical History) evaluates patterns of past and present incidents, then combines the information with a range of data including crime reports, intelligence briefings, offender behaviour profiles and even weather forecasts. This is used to identify potential hot spots and flashpoints, so police forces can allocate resources to areas where particular crimes are most likely to occur.
Good old fashioned police work used to be capable of predicting crime hot spots, until the bobby was taken off the beat and sat in an office!
Minority Report-style technology being trialled by two British forces following success in the US
Two British police forces have begun trials of a sophisticated computer software package which aims to boost their efficiency by predicting where and when future crimes will take place.
The system, known as Crush (Criminal Reduction Utilising Statistical History) evaluates patterns of past and present incidents, then combines the information with a range of data including crime reports, intelligence briefings, offender behaviour profiles and even weather forecasts. This is used to identify potential hot spots and flashpoints, so police forces can allocate resources to areas where particular crimes are most likely to occur.
Good old fashioned police work used to be capable of predicting crime hot spots, until the bobby was taken off the beat and sat in an office!
The bitch is back!
The bitch is back!
Denise Fergus, the mother of James Bulger, turned up at the Old Bailey to see a trial which does not and should not concern her and unreasonably expected preferential treatment. Naturally, she was then disappointed when she did not get her way. Egged on irresponsibly by the Sun and Daily Mail, she gives vent to her anger and bitter and twisted emotions.
The best advice I can give her is to get over it. Stalking Jon Venables for the rest of her life will not bring back James Bulger. In effect, she is inflicting a cruel and unusual punishment upon Venables. He has endured enough, satisfying the twin aims of retribution and deterrence which make up the tariff element of a life sentence. He has paid his debt to society for his part in the killing of James Bulger. It is unfair upon Jon Venables and Denise Fergus, and the Sun and Daily Mail editors should hang their heads in shame.
The Mail on Sunday with the story and longest winded headline I have seen is here.
Denise Fergus, the mother of James Bulger, turned up at the Old Bailey to see a trial which does not and should not concern her and unreasonably expected preferential treatment. Naturally, she was then disappointed when she did not get her way. Egged on irresponsibly by the Sun and Daily Mail, she gives vent to her anger and bitter and twisted emotions.
The best advice I can give her is to get over it. Stalking Jon Venables for the rest of her life will not bring back James Bulger. In effect, she is inflicting a cruel and unusual punishment upon Venables. He has endured enough, satisfying the twin aims of retribution and deterrence which make up the tariff element of a life sentence. He has paid his debt to society for his part in the killing of James Bulger. It is unfair upon Jon Venables and Denise Fergus, and the Sun and Daily Mail editors should hang their heads in shame.
The Mail on Sunday with the story and longest winded headline I have seen is here.
Devon care home abuser's sentence is cut
Devon care home abuser's sentence is cut
A residential home employee from Devon jailed for sexually abusing disabled women in his care has had jail term cut from 12-and-a-half years to four.
James Watts, from Chulmleigh, was jailed at Exeter Crown Court in November.
The 58-year-old was convicted of six offences against four physically and mentally disabled women.
The Court of Appeal ruled the verdicts were safe but said the sentence was too long.
Watts had worked as a driver at a residential home in north Devon, which cannot be identified, between 2005 and 2008.
Watts had thought he would not be caught because his victims could not communicate.
Three victims had cerebral palsy which meant they could not move unaided or stand and needed a hoist to be moved around.
Watts had been appealing to have his conviction thrown out. He had denied all the charges during his trial.
I think it is a shame that the CofA has minimised sexual abuse against physically and mentally disabled women. This was not a case of looking at photographs like Jon Venables, and yet the sentence is only 4 years, twice as much what Venables was given for a lot less. Watts not only sexually abused the very vulnerable, he also breached the trust placed in him by the patients and the authorities. I would go as far as saying that the CofA has merely added insult to injury.
A residential home employee from Devon jailed for sexually abusing disabled women in his care has had jail term cut from 12-and-a-half years to four.
James Watts, from Chulmleigh, was jailed at Exeter Crown Court in November.
The 58-year-old was convicted of six offences against four physically and mentally disabled women.
The Court of Appeal ruled the verdicts were safe but said the sentence was too long.
Watts had worked as a driver at a residential home in north Devon, which cannot be identified, between 2005 and 2008.
Watts had thought he would not be caught because his victims could not communicate.
Three victims had cerebral palsy which meant they could not move unaided or stand and needed a hoist to be moved around.
Watts had been appealing to have his conviction thrown out. He had denied all the charges during his trial.
I think it is a shame that the CofA has minimised sexual abuse against physically and mentally disabled women. This was not a case of looking at photographs like Jon Venables, and yet the sentence is only 4 years, twice as much what Venables was given for a lot less. Watts not only sexually abused the very vulnerable, he also breached the trust placed in him by the patients and the authorities. I would go as far as saying that the CofA has merely added insult to injury.
Tory MP warned over requests to remove face veils
Tory MP warned over requests to remove face veils
A Conservative MP has been warned he could face legal action if he refuses to meet constituents who wear burkas or niqabs, which hide their faces.
Lawyers for pressure group Liberty have written to Philip Hollobone stating the Equality Act obliges him to avoid discrimination.
The Kettering MP said he needed to meet voters face-to-face.
He added he would invite those who did not remove their veil to communicate in a different way, such as by letter.
Mr Hollobone was unavailable for comment when the BBC attempted to contact him.
I think it is a shame that Liberty is prepared to take up this issue, and yet appears to hide behind a veil of secrecy as to why it does not take up the issue of convicted prisoners human right to the vote.
A Conservative MP has been warned he could face legal action if he refuses to meet constituents who wear burkas or niqabs, which hide their faces.
Lawyers for pressure group Liberty have written to Philip Hollobone stating the Equality Act obliges him to avoid discrimination.
The Kettering MP said he needed to meet voters face-to-face.
He added he would invite those who did not remove their veil to communicate in a different way, such as by letter.
Mr Hollobone was unavailable for comment when the BBC attempted to contact him.
I think it is a shame that Liberty is prepared to take up this issue, and yet appears to hide behind a veil of secrecy as to why it does not take up the issue of convicted prisoners human right to the vote.
Megrahi case exposes constitutional illiteracy
Megrahi case exposes constitutional illiteracy
It's not just foreigners who seem confused – the British political class no longer understand the UK and Scotland's place within it
Gerry Hassan, Guardian, Saturday 24 July 2010 17.00 BST
The Abdelbaset al-Megrahi case has many dimensions – how the UK government does business, the realpolitik of oil companies such as BP, and the way in which the west views the Middle East. Then there is the Scottish dimension.
The Lockerbie bombing occurred over the Scottish town of that name, and Megrahi was convicted under Scots law and served part of his sentence in a Scottish prison. He was released under Scots law by a Scottish minister.
When the story of his release broke last year, the very existence of Scots judicial and legal systems was broadcast around the world. To many, this story was an introduction to the fact that there was a nation called "Scotland", or that a "modern Scotland" different from the ancient land of kings, battles and myths still existed. And there was an entity called "the Scottish government" with a "first minister", Alex Salmond, who was a self-confessed "Scottish nationalist" or "separatist" in the eyes of some.
The Megrahi case has revealed that such ignorance and misunderstandings don't just exist far away – where there is some excuse for it – but much closer to home, in the UK. And this tells us something about the condition and health of the UK.
Several commentators, including centre-left ones such as James McInytre, have blamed the whole episode on devolution, arguing last year that the Megrahi decision was the sort of decision that "should have been taken – and be seen to be taken – at a national level by the British government" and that "devolution has led to a grave failure of accountability". This is a fundamental error, given that the processes that led to the release of Megrahi were based on Scots law – which has been in existence for centuries and long predate the current Scottish parliament.
Daniel Kawczynski, Tory MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham and chair of the all-party parliamentary committee on Libya, called for an investigation of what he described as "the constitutional aspects of this case". When invited to further elucidate what aspects of MacAskill's decision were "unconstitutional" he answered that the decision impacted on "UK relations with the Arab world and the United States".
David Cameron's decision to voice his "violent agreement" with Barack Obama in Washington against the Megrahi release is worthy of note. Cameron chose to vociferously collude with Obama in denigrating the Scottish government – which is part of the sovereign terrain of the UK.
This is illuminating because the previous UK government, in the form of Gordon Brown, picked its words on this very carefully. Cameron trashed his own much-vaunted "respect" agenda between the UK and Scottish governments; at the same time he has decided to pussyfoot around whether he approves or disapproves of the Blair-inspired prisoner transfer agreement with the Libyan authorities.
All of this matters in the case in question and beyond. Once there was a powerful sense of Britain that informed our political elites as well as the populace. The governing credos of these isles was informed by the different histories, cultures and backgrounds of the nations of the UK, and in its "high unionism" celebrated and felt comfortable with this.
This powerful glue has now mostly dissolved at the popular level along with any belief in such voodoo rubbish as "parliamentary sovereignty", while the statecraft, elan and faith in Britain which once characterised British elites has dramatically declined.
The British political class, the Westminster village and the world of politicians, civil servants and experts, no longer understand the nature of the UK, and have lost any pretence that they care. This matters to the future of the UK, our governance arrangements and political institutions and, ultimately, to the state of our democracy. It does not auger well for its future prospects that our nomenklatura seems increasingly to exhibit a political illiteracy about the UK, something which can only aid the gathering storm clouds on the horizon, and those making the case for an independent Scots foreign policy.
It's not just foreigners who seem confused – the British political class no longer understand the UK and Scotland's place within it
Gerry Hassan, Guardian, Saturday 24 July 2010 17.00 BST
The Abdelbaset al-Megrahi case has many dimensions – how the UK government does business, the realpolitik of oil companies such as BP, and the way in which the west views the Middle East. Then there is the Scottish dimension.
The Lockerbie bombing occurred over the Scottish town of that name, and Megrahi was convicted under Scots law and served part of his sentence in a Scottish prison. He was released under Scots law by a Scottish minister.
When the story of his release broke last year, the very existence of Scots judicial and legal systems was broadcast around the world. To many, this story was an introduction to the fact that there was a nation called "Scotland", or that a "modern Scotland" different from the ancient land of kings, battles and myths still existed. And there was an entity called "the Scottish government" with a "first minister", Alex Salmond, who was a self-confessed "Scottish nationalist" or "separatist" in the eyes of some.
The Megrahi case has revealed that such ignorance and misunderstandings don't just exist far away – where there is some excuse for it – but much closer to home, in the UK. And this tells us something about the condition and health of the UK.
Several commentators, including centre-left ones such as James McInytre, have blamed the whole episode on devolution, arguing last year that the Megrahi decision was the sort of decision that "should have been taken – and be seen to be taken – at a national level by the British government" and that "devolution has led to a grave failure of accountability". This is a fundamental error, given that the processes that led to the release of Megrahi were based on Scots law – which has been in existence for centuries and long predate the current Scottish parliament.
Daniel Kawczynski, Tory MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham and chair of the all-party parliamentary committee on Libya, called for an investigation of what he described as "the constitutional aspects of this case". When invited to further elucidate what aspects of MacAskill's decision were "unconstitutional" he answered that the decision impacted on "UK relations with the Arab world and the United States".
David Cameron's decision to voice his "violent agreement" with Barack Obama in Washington against the Megrahi release is worthy of note. Cameron chose to vociferously collude with Obama in denigrating the Scottish government – which is part of the sovereign terrain of the UK.
This is illuminating because the previous UK government, in the form of Gordon Brown, picked its words on this very carefully. Cameron trashed his own much-vaunted "respect" agenda between the UK and Scottish governments; at the same time he has decided to pussyfoot around whether he approves or disapproves of the Blair-inspired prisoner transfer agreement with the Libyan authorities.
All of this matters in the case in question and beyond. Once there was a powerful sense of Britain that informed our political elites as well as the populace. The governing credos of these isles was informed by the different histories, cultures and backgrounds of the nations of the UK, and in its "high unionism" celebrated and felt comfortable with this.
This powerful glue has now mostly dissolved at the popular level along with any belief in such voodoo rubbish as "parliamentary sovereignty", while the statecraft, elan and faith in Britain which once characterised British elites has dramatically declined.
The British political class, the Westminster village and the world of politicians, civil servants and experts, no longer understand the nature of the UK, and have lost any pretence that they care. This matters to the future of the UK, our governance arrangements and political institutions and, ultimately, to the state of our democracy. It does not auger well for its future prospects that our nomenklatura seems increasingly to exhibit a political illiteracy about the UK, something which can only aid the gathering storm clouds on the horizon, and those making the case for an independent Scots foreign policy.
Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons?
Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons?
Prisons minister says criminals could cut jail sentences by saying 'sorry'
• Crispin Blunt wants victims to confront offenders
• Restorative justice would lead to 'rehabilitation revolution'
Crispin Blunt, the prisons minister, wants to take addicts and the mentally ill out of the system and place them in secure treatment centres. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian
Tens of thousands of offenders may be able to reduce their sentences by making personal apologies to their victims, under plans for a "rehabilitation revolution" in the criminal justice system.
Crispin Blunt, the prisons minister, is considering the move as part of a drive to offer victims the chance to come face-to-face with the person who committed the crime against them. A report released today by two charities, Victim Support and the Restorative Justice Consortium, suggests the policy could save £185m in two years by cutting reoffending.
The minister has also declared his support for a form of "community payback" where money that is earned by criminals, either in prison or during alternative forms of punishment, is diverted to the victims of crime as a form of "community payback".
The Ministry of Justice has also drawn up plans to take thousands of prisoners who are mentally ill or addicted to drugs out of prison and place them in secure treatment centres. Around 13,000 people are in UK prisons for drugs offences. According to the probation union, Napo, a further 5,000 men and 500 women in the system have psychotic disorders.
The radical reforms will fuel an increasingly bitter law and order row within the coalition government. Ken Clarke, the minister of justice, has been fiercely criticised for arguing that the number of prisoners in UK jails should be reduced.
Last week Blunt was forced by Downing Street to withdraw plans to abolish a ban on comedy workshops and parties in prison. He said that offenders could be confronted with the victims of their crime in meetings facilitated by police officers. "I'm a maximalist when it comes to restorative justice – I want to get it into our system at every stage," he said. "It makes common sense: if you have a system that is remote, so the victim doesn't really engage, then [they become] frustrated by the lack of involvement.
"With community payback there is a value of the labour that is being done [in prison or alternative forms of punishment] and that value should be cashed and should be going back to the victim.
But some Conservative MPs warned against favouring the wishes of those working in the criminal justice system, and not the wider public.
Tory MP Douglas Carswell said: "Restorative justice is certainly a fad that excited those that work for the criminal justice system, and I am not sure it is necessarily a bad thing. But it should be no substitute for justice. Some people tend to think that rehabilitation should take primacy over punishment. I don't think most people agree with that."
Blunt is being advised about how to roll out the plans by Victim Support and the Restorative Justice Consortium, which wants 75,000 victims of robbery, violence and burglary each year to be offered meetings, arguing that this would cut reconviction rates by 27%.
The report recommends meetings take place before sentencing. Lawrence Kershen QC, chair of the Restorative Justice Consortium, said case law indicated that judges could take into account a restorative meeting when considering sentencing. "An important element that judges are looking for is whether there is remorse. The reason we look for that is if someone feels remorse there is a better chance – although no guarantee – that they will not do it again." Both charities point out that such meetings are used in other countries to divert people out of the criminal justice system.Critics claim that offenders could manipulate such a system by lying, but Kershen added: "Most of the time victims know if someone is genuine when they say they are sorry. Offenders say facing their victim is one of the hardest things to do. You cannot hide behind a lawyer – you are there, naked in a way."
The Forgiveness Project, a grassroots organisation, helps to encourage restorative justice by facilitating meetings for offenders with the actual victims or "surrogate victims".
Among the people who have been helped by the project are Mary Foley, whose 15-year-old daughter was stabbed to death by teenager Beatriz Martins-Paes, who later wrote to her apologise. The mother has forgiven Martins-Paes and wants to meet her, saying restorative justice brings "closure and healing".
Prisons minister says criminals could cut jail sentences by saying 'sorry'
• Crispin Blunt wants victims to confront offenders
• Restorative justice would lead to 'rehabilitation revolution'
Crispin Blunt, the prisons minister, wants to take addicts and the mentally ill out of the system and place them in secure treatment centres. Photograph: Graham Turner for the GuardianTens of thousands of offenders may be able to reduce their sentences by making personal apologies to their victims, under plans for a "rehabilitation revolution" in the criminal justice system.
Crispin Blunt, the prisons minister, is considering the move as part of a drive to offer victims the chance to come face-to-face with the person who committed the crime against them. A report released today by two charities, Victim Support and the Restorative Justice Consortium, suggests the policy could save £185m in two years by cutting reoffending.
The minister has also declared his support for a form of "community payback" where money that is earned by criminals, either in prison or during alternative forms of punishment, is diverted to the victims of crime as a form of "community payback".
The Ministry of Justice has also drawn up plans to take thousands of prisoners who are mentally ill or addicted to drugs out of prison and place them in secure treatment centres. Around 13,000 people are in UK prisons for drugs offences. According to the probation union, Napo, a further 5,000 men and 500 women in the system have psychotic disorders.
The radical reforms will fuel an increasingly bitter law and order row within the coalition government. Ken Clarke, the minister of justice, has been fiercely criticised for arguing that the number of prisoners in UK jails should be reduced.
Last week Blunt was forced by Downing Street to withdraw plans to abolish a ban on comedy workshops and parties in prison. He said that offenders could be confronted with the victims of their crime in meetings facilitated by police officers. "I'm a maximalist when it comes to restorative justice – I want to get it into our system at every stage," he said. "It makes common sense: if you have a system that is remote, so the victim doesn't really engage, then [they become] frustrated by the lack of involvement.
"With community payback there is a value of the labour that is being done [in prison or alternative forms of punishment] and that value should be cashed and should be going back to the victim.
But some Conservative MPs warned against favouring the wishes of those working in the criminal justice system, and not the wider public.
Tory MP Douglas Carswell said: "Restorative justice is certainly a fad that excited those that work for the criminal justice system, and I am not sure it is necessarily a bad thing. But it should be no substitute for justice. Some people tend to think that rehabilitation should take primacy over punishment. I don't think most people agree with that."
Blunt is being advised about how to roll out the plans by Victim Support and the Restorative Justice Consortium, which wants 75,000 victims of robbery, violence and burglary each year to be offered meetings, arguing that this would cut reconviction rates by 27%.
The report recommends meetings take place before sentencing. Lawrence Kershen QC, chair of the Restorative Justice Consortium, said case law indicated that judges could take into account a restorative meeting when considering sentencing. "An important element that judges are looking for is whether there is remorse. The reason we look for that is if someone feels remorse there is a better chance – although no guarantee – that they will not do it again." Both charities point out that such meetings are used in other countries to divert people out of the criminal justice system.Critics claim that offenders could manipulate such a system by lying, but Kershen added: "Most of the time victims know if someone is genuine when they say they are sorry. Offenders say facing their victim is one of the hardest things to do. You cannot hide behind a lawyer – you are there, naked in a way."
The Forgiveness Project, a grassroots organisation, helps to encourage restorative justice by facilitating meetings for offenders with the actual victims or "surrogate victims".
Among the people who have been helped by the project are Mary Foley, whose 15-year-old daughter was stabbed to death by teenager Beatriz Martins-Paes, who later wrote to her apologise. The mother has forgiven Martins-Paes and wants to meet her, saying restorative justice brings "closure and healing".
Al-Qaeda leaders escape from jail
Al-Qaeda leaders escape from jail
Hugh Tomlinson Baghdad
Last updated July 24 2010 12:01AM
An administrative error appears to have contributed to the escape of three al-Qaeda leaders less than a week after it was handed over to Iraq control by US forces. The Iraqi Government said yesterday that a total of four men escaped from the Camp Cropper detention centre on Tuesday night, including the Finance, Interior and Justice Ministers of the Islamic State of Iraq, a front group for al-Qaeda.
Government sources said that the men were assisted in their escape by four prison guards, who have also disappeared. A manhunt has begun but Baghdad blamed the US for failing to alert the Government to the men’s profile and keep them in the jail’s maximum-security wing, which is still under American control.
Camp Cropper, the last US-run detention centre in Iraq, was handed over to local security forces on July 14. At Baghdad’s request, however, US troops have maintained an enclave within the facility containing about 200 inmates believed to present the greatest security risk.
The four men who escaped were not being held in this section, making it much easier for them to flee. “The Americans have kept the most dangerous prisoners. If these four are so dangerous, why give them to the Iraqi Government?” Dara Noureddin, the Iraqi Justice Minister, said.
The Justice Ministry complained before the handover at Cropper that it had no idea who was being held in the jail or who the 200 high-security prisoners were.
The US military declined to comment on the incident but insisted that the Iraqi Government had received details of the inmates at Cropper before the handover. Neither side would explain who had responsibility for drawing up the list of high-profile prisoners or why the three al-Qaeda commanders were not on it.
The affair is another embarrassment for the Iraqi justice system, coming only days after it emerged that the killer of British aid worker Margaret Hassan escaped custody more than two months ago. Ali Lutfi Jassar al-Rawi, serving life for murdering Mrs Hassan in 2008, has been on the run since mid-May, but Iraqi prison authorities admitted that he had escaped only last week when he failed to appear for a court hearing.
Iraq is taking full control of law and order across the country as the US prepares to end seven years of combat operations from September 1, withdrawing 25,000 troops over the coming month.
The breakout at Cropper was not discovered until Wednesday morning. How the men made their getaway was still not clear. A hole was found cut in the prison fence but government sources said that they believed this was a decoy. An investigation has started to find other potential al-Qaeda sympathisers among the prison guards.
Hugh Tomlinson Baghdad
Last updated July 24 2010 12:01AM
An administrative error appears to have contributed to the escape of three al-Qaeda leaders less than a week after it was handed over to Iraq control by US forces. The Iraqi Government said yesterday that a total of four men escaped from the Camp Cropper detention centre on Tuesday night, including the Finance, Interior and Justice Ministers of the Islamic State of Iraq, a front group for al-Qaeda.
Government sources said that the men were assisted in their escape by four prison guards, who have also disappeared. A manhunt has begun but Baghdad blamed the US for failing to alert the Government to the men’s profile and keep them in the jail’s maximum-security wing, which is still under American control.
Camp Cropper, the last US-run detention centre in Iraq, was handed over to local security forces on July 14. At Baghdad’s request, however, US troops have maintained an enclave within the facility containing about 200 inmates believed to present the greatest security risk.
The four men who escaped were not being held in this section, making it much easier for them to flee. “The Americans have kept the most dangerous prisoners. If these four are so dangerous, why give them to the Iraqi Government?” Dara Noureddin, the Iraqi Justice Minister, said.
The Justice Ministry complained before the handover at Cropper that it had no idea who was being held in the jail or who the 200 high-security prisoners were.
The US military declined to comment on the incident but insisted that the Iraqi Government had received details of the inmates at Cropper before the handover. Neither side would explain who had responsibility for drawing up the list of high-profile prisoners or why the three al-Qaeda commanders were not on it.
The affair is another embarrassment for the Iraqi justice system, coming only days after it emerged that the killer of British aid worker Margaret Hassan escaped custody more than two months ago. Ali Lutfi Jassar al-Rawi, serving life for murdering Mrs Hassan in 2008, has been on the run since mid-May, but Iraqi prison authorities admitted that he had escaped only last week when he failed to appear for a court hearing.
Iraq is taking full control of law and order across the country as the US prepares to end seven years of combat operations from September 1, withdrawing 25,000 troops over the coming month.
The breakout at Cropper was not discovered until Wednesday morning. How the men made their getaway was still not clear. A hole was found cut in the prison fence but government sources said that they believed this was a decoy. An investigation has started to find other potential al-Qaeda sympathisers among the prison guards.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Villagers open grocery shop inside phone box
Villagers open grocery shop inside phone box
Villagers have fought back against the decline in rural services by opening a grocery store in a disused phone box – and nothing has been stolen even though it is left unattended.
The charming facility – stocking milk, sandwiches, newspapers and other everyday items – has been set up inside a vacant red phone box next to the site of the village's former shop.
It is operated according to the "honesty box" principle, with residents leaving payment for any goods they take.
Villagers have fought back against the decline in rural services by opening a grocery store in a disused phone box – and nothing has been stolen even though it is left unattended.
The charming facility – stocking milk, sandwiches, newspapers and other everyday items – has been set up inside a vacant red phone box next to the site of the village's former shop.
It is operated according to the "honesty box" principle, with residents leaving payment for any goods they take.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Libel victory for Labour bloggers
Libel victory for Labour bloggers
Posted by George Eaton - 23 July 2010 16:40
Alex Hilton and John Gray have the libel case against them struck out.
Some good news from the High Court where bloggers Alex Hilton (formerly of Recess Monkey and Labour Home) and John Gray (John's Labour Blog) have had the libel case against them struck out. Both faced bankruptcy if the three-year case proceeded to jury trial.
The case was brought by Johanna Kaschke, a blogger and a remarkable political cross-dresser (in the space of 12 months she defected to George Galloway's Respect from Labour, joined the Communist Party and finally settled in the Conservative Party), who previously lost her case against Dave Osler.
Jack of Kent, who provided legal assistance to Hilton and Gray, has a long and detailed summary of the background to the case on his blog. But for those who haven't been following the story, the case revolved around the fact that Kaschke was once falsely suspected of being a member of the Baader Meinhoff Gang.
Kaschke took exception to Gray's decision to refer to the Baader Meinhoff Gang by name (preferring the euphemistic "criminal gang"), despite previously mentioning them on her own website. As Jack of Kent writes, Kaschke was challenged by the presiding Judge to explain the reputational difference between:
(1) being arrested on suspicion of being a member of Baader-Meinhof, the terrorist group that carried out bombings, robberies and murder (the meaning on which she is seeking vindication by means of this claim for libel), and
(2) being accused of being a member of a criminal gang with the aim to commit terrorist offences (a statement which the Claimant herself adopts as the position).
She was unable to persuasively do so. That the case has ended in a victory for free speech and common sense is to be welcomed. But that it was allowed to proceed for so long is a salutary reminder of the desperate need to reform our draconian libel laws.
Comment: Read the judgment Kaschke v Gray and Hilton
Posted by George Eaton - 23 July 2010 16:40
Alex Hilton and John Gray have the libel case against them struck out.
Some good news from the High Court where bloggers Alex Hilton (formerly of Recess Monkey and Labour Home) and John Gray (John's Labour Blog) have had the libel case against them struck out. Both faced bankruptcy if the three-year case proceeded to jury trial.
The case was brought by Johanna Kaschke, a blogger and a remarkable political cross-dresser (in the space of 12 months she defected to George Galloway's Respect from Labour, joined the Communist Party and finally settled in the Conservative Party), who previously lost her case against Dave Osler.
Jack of Kent, who provided legal assistance to Hilton and Gray, has a long and detailed summary of the background to the case on his blog. But for those who haven't been following the story, the case revolved around the fact that Kaschke was once falsely suspected of being a member of the Baader Meinhoff Gang.
Kaschke took exception to Gray's decision to refer to the Baader Meinhoff Gang by name (preferring the euphemistic "criminal gang"), despite previously mentioning them on her own website. As Jack of Kent writes, Kaschke was challenged by the presiding Judge to explain the reputational difference between:
(1) being arrested on suspicion of being a member of Baader-Meinhof, the terrorist group that carried out bombings, robberies and murder (the meaning on which she is seeking vindication by means of this claim for libel), and
(2) being accused of being a member of a criminal gang with the aim to commit terrorist offences (a statement which the Claimant herself adopts as the position).
She was unable to persuasively do so. That the case has ended in a victory for free speech and common sense is to be welcomed. But that it was allowed to proceed for so long is a salutary reminder of the desperate need to reform our draconian libel laws.
Comment: Read the judgment Kaschke v Gray and Hilton
Defense officials investigated for child porn
Defense officials investigated for child porn
By the CNN Wire Staff
July 23, 2010 -- Updated 1704 GMT (0104 HKT)
Washington (CNN) -- The U.S. Department of Defense has investigated several dozen of its current, former and contracted employees who are suspected of accessing and purchasing child pornography, government documents showed Friday.
Several of the workers identified in a series of reports released by the Department of Defense were listed as having top secret or higher security clearance. Some of the employees included in the investigation had used their work computers to access pornographic websites.
"Child pornography is illegal and subscribers of commercial child pornography that are associated with the DoD put the DoD, the military and national security at risk by compromising computer systems, military installations and security clearances to name a few," read one report from the Defense Criminal Investigative Service dated October 2008.
The report continued: "Additionally, it puts the DoD at risk of blackmail, bribery, and threats, especially since these individuals typically have access to military installations."
Gary Comoford, a Department of Defense inspector general official, declined to comment on the cases.
News of the investigations, which span several years, was reported by the Boston Globe on Friday.
By the CNN Wire Staff
July 23, 2010 -- Updated 1704 GMT (0104 HKT)
Washington (CNN) -- The U.S. Department of Defense has investigated several dozen of its current, former and contracted employees who are suspected of accessing and purchasing child pornography, government documents showed Friday.
Several of the workers identified in a series of reports released by the Department of Defense were listed as having top secret or higher security clearance. Some of the employees included in the investigation had used their work computers to access pornographic websites.
"Child pornography is illegal and subscribers of commercial child pornography that are associated with the DoD put the DoD, the military and national security at risk by compromising computer systems, military installations and security clearances to name a few," read one report from the Defense Criminal Investigative Service dated October 2008.
The report continued: "Additionally, it puts the DoD at risk of blackmail, bribery, and threats, especially since these individuals typically have access to military installations."
Gary Comoford, a Department of Defense inspector general official, declined to comment on the cases.
News of the investigations, which span several years, was reported by the Boston Globe on Friday.
Straw turns down US Senate Lockerbie request
Straw turns down US Senate Lockerbie request
By Emma Thelwell, Channel 4 News Updated on 23 July 2010
Former Justice Secretary Jack Straw declines a request to appear before a US Senate committee investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber, while Channel 4 News looks at Lockerbie, BP and those deals in the desert.
The US Senate invited Mr Straw to the Washington hearing next week, alongside BP chief executive Tony Hayward and the former MI6 agent Sir Mark Allen, who was an advisor to BP.
Sir Mark lobbied Mr Straw to speed up an agreement over prisoner transfers to avoid jeopardising BP's £590m Libyan deal.
However, the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds was made by the Scottish government.
Mr Straw turned down the invitation tonight on the basis that he had "absolutely nothing" to do with the decision.
Related content...
Scots will not attend US hearing on Lockerbie bomber
Scottish ministers and officials have turned down a request to attend a US Senate hearing next week over the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
Why did the Yanks go for Independence if they still want to have a say in the UK?
By Emma Thelwell, Channel 4 News Updated on 23 July 2010
Former Justice Secretary Jack Straw declines a request to appear before a US Senate committee investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber, while Channel 4 News looks at Lockerbie, BP and those deals in the desert.
The US Senate invited Mr Straw to the Washington hearing next week, alongside BP chief executive Tony Hayward and the former MI6 agent Sir Mark Allen, who was an advisor to BP.
Sir Mark lobbied Mr Straw to speed up an agreement over prisoner transfers to avoid jeopardising BP's £590m Libyan deal.
However, the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds was made by the Scottish government.
Mr Straw turned down the invitation tonight on the basis that he had "absolutely nothing" to do with the decision.
Related content...
Scots will not attend US hearing on Lockerbie bomber
Scottish ministers and officials have turned down a request to attend a US Senate hearing next week over the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
Why did the Yanks go for Independence if they still want to have a say in the UK?
No 'prison parties' says No 10 after Blunt comments
No 'prison parties' says No 10 after Blunt comments
Justice Minister Crispin Blunt has been over-ruled by No 10 after he suggested prisoners could be allowed to hold parties.
Mr Blunt said Winston Churchill approved of cultural events for prisoners like lectures and concerts
Justice Minister Crispin Blunt said a ban on "inappropriate" prison events, introduced in 2008 after reports of fancy dress parties, was "daft".
He blamed the media for an "absurd over-reaction" over the issue.
But No 10 insisted there would be "no such parties" after Mr Blunt's comments were reported in a newspaper.
David Cameron's spokesman said the prime minister retained full confidence in the minister.
Mr Blunt made the remarks in a speech on the "direction and reform" of the criminal justice system, his first major address on the issue since taking office.
Link to speech in full.
Adverse media reaction in The Sun and Daily Mail.
Related content...
Crispin Blunt is carpeted for the wrong thing
By Tim Montgomerie
Justice Minister Crispin Blunt has been over-ruled by No 10 after he suggested prisoners could be allowed to hold parties.
Mr Blunt said Winston Churchill approved of cultural events for prisoners like lectures and concertsJustice Minister Crispin Blunt said a ban on "inappropriate" prison events, introduced in 2008 after reports of fancy dress parties, was "daft".
He blamed the media for an "absurd over-reaction" over the issue.
But No 10 insisted there would be "no such parties" after Mr Blunt's comments were reported in a newspaper.
David Cameron's spokesman said the prime minister retained full confidence in the minister.
Mr Blunt made the remarks in a speech on the "direction and reform" of the criminal justice system, his first major address on the issue since taking office.
Link to speech in full.
Adverse media reaction in The Sun and Daily Mail.
Related content...
Crispin Blunt is carpeted for the wrong thing
By Tim Montgomerie
Crispin Blunt: "Churchill Speech" in full...
Crispin Blunt: "Churchill Speech" in full...
Justice Minister, Crispin Blunt, has given a speech on the direction and reform of the criminal justice system at NACRO, West Norwood Centre
22 July 2010
NACRO, West Norwood Centre
Introduction
Churchill’s parliamentary career lasted well over half a century and inevitably contained some less than successful moments. But what defined him was his ability to call the big the great issues right and to encapsulate them in soaring rhetoric, that in 1940 rallied the whole of the free world in the face of tyranny. In 30 years time people will be marking the 100th anniversary of those speeches. I’m delighted to mark 30 years sooner the 100th anniversary of as great a speech dealing with crime and criminality.
On 20th July 1910 he made the following observation in the House of Commons:
'The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country.'
(Winston Churchill, Home Secretary, House of Commons, July 20th, 1910)
What has happened to our civilisation against this test in the last 100 years.? Anyone sharing Churchill’s analysis and his humanity in 1910 would be astonished at some of today’s popular attitudes to crime and punishment, certainly those expressed in the less reflective parts of the media. But they would also be appalled by much of the history of the succeeding 100 years in which Churchill played such a prominent part, when man’s inhumanity to man was all too evident, usually on the basis of race or religion let alone where individuals might be expected to have responsibility for their actions as criminals. By this test,and others, our civilisation hasn’t much improved in the last century.
Penal reform was a controversial issue in 1910. It is controversial today. But I have detected a shift in opinion in the wake of the Justice Secretary’s recent speech on how we address offenders, not least in our use of prison in this country. A shift Churchill would have approved.
100 years ago Churchill wound up his address with this incredibly powerful peroration:
‘A calm and dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused against the state, and even of convicted criminals against the state, a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment, a desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment, tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerating processes, and an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man these are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it.’
It could not be more appropriate than to mark this centenary than with Nacro, with your own long and admirable history, and being the nation’s leading organization wholly true to the values Churchill expressed so powerfully 100 years ago. Your vision for “a safer society where everyone belongs, human rights are respected and preventing crime means tackling social exclusion and re-integrating those who offend” may not quite scale the rhetorical heights of England’s greatest political speaker of the 20th century. But they are exactly the themes I want to talk about today: how we have progressed, or not, in the last 100 years.
Churchill had become Home Secretary in February 1910. He was passing through his Liberal phase, and would no doubt be delighted by the current alliance of his two old political homes.
His predecessor as Home Secretary, Herbert Gladstone, offered him some advice on taking up office. He suggested:
‘As regards prisons it won’t be a bad thing to give a harassed department some rest.’
So within 6 days of taking office he instigated a major reform of penal policy.
We are doing the same. As the Secretary of State set out in his speech on 30 June, the priorities of the Ministry are to punish offenders, protect the public and provide access to justice. But we want to initiate a more constructive approach to rehabilitation and sentencing, and re-think whether putting more and more people into custody really delivers on making people safer. We styled it a rehabilitation revolution in our programme for government. And now we are getting stuck into it. Churchill’s initiative has much in common with the opportunity open to us: to transform our criminal justice system and our attitude to, and treatment, of offenders.
So I am visiting as many prisons, probation trusts and youth offending teams across the country as I can. I want to hear the views of everyone working with offenders – the people at the sharp end who know what does and does not work. I want to find out more about their day to day challenges. I want to listen to how they would improve the system. I have already met many very good people out there, doing some very good work. I commend their commitment and professionalism. And I am proud to have overall responsibility for over 70,000 people managing offenders in the Prison and the Probation services.
But it is clear that in many areas the criminal justice system is just not working. It is failing the people who serve in that system, it is failing the offenders managed by that system and by their victims, now and in the future. It is failing the public.
In 1910 the system was also in need of urgent reform. Churchill made a number of proposals and on reading his speech it is extraordinary the number of his ideas that link to the challenges we face today.
Fines
First he altered the regulations for payments of fines. 90,000 people a year were committed to prison because they could not pay a fine immediately. Churchill proposed a period of grace to pay. A simple but effective measure to stop people going unnecessarily to prison.
Now there are many ways for offenders to pay fines. The days of thousands of fine defaulters being held in prison are thankfully long gone. But the fine remains important. We often forget that the fine is by far the most common sentence in the criminal courts. Fines play an important role: punishing offending but also offering reparation to victims of crime. But their use has declined. We need to ask why that is and what we can do about it. Financial compensation, to the victim directly and to society, should be an important part both of restorative justice and punishment. Restoration has played too limited a role in our justice system. I would argue it is good for the victim, good for the offender and good for society to examine how we can widen its role – and we will do so as major part of our assessment of sentencing and approach to rehabilitation.
Young offenders
The second major reform he proposed was on the treatment of young offenders, [those aged between 16 and 21] – another area where many were sent to prison unnecessarily. Many of these young offenders found themselves in prison because they also had not paid fines or had committed very minor offences. And Churchill saw there was clear evidence of a failure of social justice amongst those young people imprisoned:
‘It is an evil which falls only on the sons of the working classes. The sons of other classes may commit many of the same kind of offences and in boisterous and exuberant moments, whether at Oxford or anywhere else, may do things for which the working classes are committed to prison, although injury may not be inflicted on anyone.’
I do not know whether this has any connection to the conversion of Oxford Gaol into a luxury hotel, but then there may be connections between the nearest prison to Oxford these days HMP Bullingdon and other institutions of that name. I have yet to investigate these and, on reflection, probably won’t.
Oxford gaol’s conversion to a luxury hotel is an example of the imaginative use of the redundant prison estate we still need in order to modernise the estate. This is why the New Prisons Programme will continue. It gives us the chance to release parts of our estate that are plainly unfit for the 21st century and that includes HMP Lancaster Castle, which has been a gaol since the 12th century. I am pleased to say that today we are opening discussions with Lancaster City Council and the Duchy of Lancaster with the intention of returning the prison to the Duchy of Lancaster who own the site and potentially turning the building into a heritage site – a rather more appropriate use for this castle than remaining a part of the prison estate.
Today we are not wrestling with the same offences committed by different social groups being dealt with differently. We are dealing with the impact of social failure upon the justice system. To take one startling example, around a quarter of prisoners were in care as children.
Churchill’s response was to propose a “defaulter’s drill” a way of dealing with minor offences and mere rowdyism: to punish without imprisoning. And today our challenge is to deliver more effective community punishments to deal with anti-social behaviour and the failure to follow earlier community orders. The desperate resort of sentencers to short prison sentences in the absence of a viable alternative is exactly that. Desperate. Because we know short sentences are likely to significantly increase the chance of the offender reoffending after release.
It is virtually impossible to do anything productive with offenders on short sentences. And many of them end up losing their jobs, their homes and their families while inside. Part of our challenge today is to deliver more effective community punishments.
We need to find today’s equivalent of defaulters’ drill. We are looking carefully at the current delivery of community payback to see if we can make this more robust and a more credible vehicle for delivering both punishment in the community and restoration for society as a whole. There are good examples of effective community payback schemes, but there is too much evidence that there is all too much time spent in indolent weeding or rail painting whilst the only actual benefit is some community reassurance from offenders being seen in their fluorescent jackets apparently doing something. It would be so much better if the apparent action was real and of economic and social value. Offenders must be focused on project completion so it is in their interests to complete tasks quickly and efficiently. The orange jackets fulfil a purpose, but must be accompanied by a worthwhile task, properly led and goal oriented. This carries the possibility of giving offenders a sense of a job well done, which will contribute to their rehabilitation, as well of being of real value to the community.
Balancing the need for punishment and rehabilitation
But the quality that shines through Churchill’s speech is his humanity towards the offender. And we should not blind ourselves to the fact that in some ways we have made pitifully little progress since 1910. Today too many offenders need a great deal of support because of the hand played to them by circumstance. They have suffered abuse, we know that around half of women in prison have experienced domestic violence, and up to a third have been victims of sexual abuse. Many are isolated from or fail to have a support network of friends and family. They have been failed by absent parents. They have suffered childhood abuse. Many have failed in the education system, abused drugs and alcohol or ended up homeless. Nearly half of sentenced offenders have emotional wellbeing issues including mental health illness. One in three report that they have an accommodation ‘need’. These figures are shocking enough. But we believe the problem to be even greater. There is cycle to crime – from generation to generation. An estimated 160,000 children have a parent in prison; they are three times more likely to engage in anti-social, and delinquent behaviour than their peers, whilst 65% of boys with a convicted father go on to offend themselves.
I welcome the work that Iain Duncan Smith has done via the Centre for Social Justice and is doing as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to develop practical ideas to move from Breakdown Britain to breakthrough Britain. We now have a Cabinet Committee on Social Justice and it’s task will be to drive change across Whitehall to tackle the issues that put many young offenders into the criminal justice system in the first place.
Our Big Society vision is all about involving individuals , communities, and voluntary and community organisations - not just in tackling crime and re-offending but in helping to keep people out of the criminal justice system in the first place. We have to get the public,private and voluntary sector working together to address disadvantage and build stronger more purposeful communities in which diverse individuals have a stake. The Criminal Justice System is already a locally delivered service, and depends on ordinary people playing their part in delivering justice. But we want members of the public, communities, and non-governmental bodies to be even more involved in reducing crime and re-offending, and helping build confidence in the justice system. This includes increasing the role of the voluntary sector and social enterprises in working with offenders and ex offenders and making use of the enormous potential of volunteers to improve their communities. Already we have a huge number of dedicated volunteers working across the criminal justice system including 14,000 special constables; 30,000 volunteer magistrates, 6,500 volunteers in Victim Support and thousands more working in prisons and with offenders and ex-offenders in the community. Building the Big Society will also mean providing information at a local level so the public can hold agencies to account and local agencies are better informed when developing solutions to tackle and prevent crime.
A particular issue involves challenging families to tackle the cycle of crime from one generation to the next. The Justice Committee’s excellent report, ‘Cutting Crime: The Case for Justice Reinvestment,’ will inform our work. I want much greater recognition of the embedded links between poor social outcomes and crime and re-offending, right across communities and government. The ministerial group on homelessness offers us the chance for a step change in how we house offenders.
And the government is just as committed to welfare reform. So that work is the best solution for people, offering them a route out of poverty. And the best chance for offenders, providing them with the stability they need to stop offending and become someone who contributes to society, not damages it.
We are doing this because, as Churchill told the Commons, the first principle of prison reform:
‘…should be to prevent as many people getting there at all.’
Sentencing Debate
We all need to think through these social issues. And we need to have a proper debate about sentencing. It is too easy to appear tough on crime by raising the rhetoric on sentencing and by offering knee jerk responses to awful events. But hard cases make bad law and the debate has been far from constructive. Other European countries have managed to have sensible and balanced debates about penal policy. The quality of debate in this country has simply been too influenced by populist rhetoric.
So these attempts to appear ever tougher cannot go on. We just cannot continue to spend more on a system that does not have the trust of the public and which does not break the cycle of crime. We have a major opportunity – to think carefully, creatively and constructively about how we reform the criminal justice system. So that it protects the public better, prevents crime, rehabilitates offenders and cuts re-offending.
Short custodial sentences & persistent offenders
When Churchill proposed his reforms in 1910 he was accused of being “soft” on crime by some who did not actually choose to look at what he had proposed. Some things don’t change. Serious offenders who commit serious crimes are still going to go to prison. What the Justice Secretary called for was a more sensible way of dealing with offenders.
We need this debate because we are just not doing so at the moment. Around half of all crime is committed by people convicted in the past. And of that half, a small group of these are committing a disproportionately large number of offences. This much is clear: we are just not stopping the ‘revolving door’ of offenders in the criminal justice system. Most short sentenced prisoners receive no supervision or support on release. Half of all adult offenders reoffend within one year of release from prison – and the rate of re-offending has risen in recent years. And it is not just about adults, we need to manage young offenders effectively. And if you don’t get their treatment right, the young offenders of today are the repeat offenders of tomorrow. This must change.
We must end this cycle of re-offending. Time in prison must be more than the deprivation of liberty but an opportunity for offenders to gain skills so that they become productive members of society. Prisons must focus on getting offenders off drugs, into work and with support to find a home to go to. By doing this we can prepare offenders for release and we can help them to stop reoffending.
IPPs
Having said that our system is failing in many regards this is particularly true of indeterminate sentences for public protection, universally known as IPPs. In 1910 indeterminate sentences were also a hot topic of debate. The House of Commons had recently rejected the idea of preventative detention but there was still pressure on Churchill to introduce indeterminate sentences. He resisted that pressure, saying:
‘I am opposed in principle to indeterminate detention except on purely medical grounds.’
IPPs have proved to be difficult for the courts and for prisons. Many offenders on IPP sentences haven’t been released from prison long after their tariffs have expired. The last government believed that these indeterminate sentences would add about 900 to the prison population. Today there are over 6,000 prisoners on IPPs and being added to at a rate of about 70 a month, meanwhile the Parole Board are releasing about one a week, with nearly 3,000 now in custody beyond their tariff for punishment. In my view the legislation on IPP sentences was drawn too widely meaning that some offenders should never have received an IPP but sentencers felt compelled by the law to impose one. The 2008 changes to the law which begin to restrict the use of IPP is one admission of these failings. Other offenders simply couldn’t in the time or with the resources available convince the Parole Board that they had addressed their offending behaviour. But IPPs have added thousands to prison numbers and the IPP population continues to grow.
There is an important debate to be had on indeterminate sentences and there have been some authoritative contributions already on IPPs from the Inspectorates and recently the Prison Reform Trust. We will present our proposals in the Green Paper, but I have not seen anything to suggest that Churchill’s instinct was not correct. So whilst this is without doubt a complex area, as many aspects of sentencing are. I welcome the debate on this issue and I hope that many of you will contribute to it.
Serious Offenders – Grendon & Frankland
Here however I want to emphasise an obvious but important point. Prisons and the supervision that follows have an important role in protecting the public from dangerous and violent offenders. Since my appointment I have visited both Frankland and Grendon Prisons, two prisons dealing with offenders who have committed serious crimes.
Grendon has six wings operating as autonomous therapeutic communities dealing with serious sex and violent offenders. I was, as many have been before, impressed by the approach of the staff and prisoners in those therapeutic circles. Such an approach may not be appropriate for all offenders and I recognize the cost of such intensive work, but I want to think about how that kind of treatment of offenders – with its focus on rehabilitation and treatment and not just on punishment - could be explored elsewhere in our prison estate.
This is no soft option. It is hard work. And we need to do it to stop crime in the future – and stop new victims of crime being created.
Arts and events in Prisons
I want to mention one other proposal from Churchill that struck a chord with me. Churchill noted that
‘we have got a class of men in our prisons who need brain food of the most ordinary character.’
He notes that
‘There have from time to time been occasional lectures given in the prisons, and a few months ago the Somerset Light Infantry, quartered near, had their band in Dartmoor Prison and it played to the convicts. It was an amazing thing the effect which was produced on all these poor people, and their letters for a month after had been eloquent in recognition of the fact.’
I have to say that not all Members of the Commons were quite as enthusiastic about military music with one suggesting that:
‘The music will be an added punishment to some.’
But there is a serious point here. We recognise that arts activities can play a valuable role in helping offenders to address issues such as communication problems and low self-esteem and enabling them to engage in programmes that address their offending behaviour I confess before getting this job I was not aware of Prison Service Instruction number 50 of 2008, though was vaguely conscious of some row in the tabloids about offenders being recorded as enjoying themselves. As a measure it was typical of the last administration’s flakiness under pressure. At the slightest whiff of criticism from the popular press policy tended to get changed and the consequence of an absurd overreaction to offenders being exposed to comedy in prison was this deleterious, damaging and daft instruction. I’m pleased to have marked the actual day of the 100th anniversary of Churchill’s speech on Tuesday by rescinding it.
The Challenges
I have outlined some of the challenges we face with young offenders, with persistent offenders and with the culture of the debate about penal policy. This has led to more and more offenders being locked up for longer and longer without making a real difference to their rehabilitation. Let me add a few more challenges.
We face the harsh reality of rescuing the public finances or as the Justice Secretary so pithily put it in our area of responsibility effecting a change from an era of policy making with a chequebook in one hand and the Daily Mail in the other. Our ambition to reform the system must be seen in the context of the constraints on the public finances. Achieving savings will mean driving value for money and delivering more from less. But ultimately the test of an effective criminal justice system is not the money poured into it, but on its results. Over the summer we will be developing options on how we serve the public in the future with a significantly lower budget.
I have talked a lot today about offenders. For every offender, there is a victim, whether that victim is an individual, a business or the public at large. And we rely on victims and the public to engage with the system, to report crime, and to come forward to give evidence. While criminal justice agencies have begun to do more to support victims through the justice process, there are still too many times when victims falls through the cracks. A survey of victims suggests, for example, that less than half (43%) are say they were offered the chance to make a Victim Personal Statement so they can make clear the impact the crime has had on them. And less than half (42%) of victims say they have the meaning of sentences explained to them by the criminal justice agencies. So which I suppose is hardly suprising given the difficulty of explaining current sentences and what they actually might mean. Alongside our plans for a rehabilitation revolution, we will also be considering how we can ensure that those victims who need help to recover from crime receive the right support at the right time.
And finally, our sentencing framework itself presents a challenge. It is highly complicated, utterly confusing and ultimately disingenuous. Sentences bear no resemblance to the time actually served in prison. This leads to confusion for victims of crime. It creates a sense of injustice when the public discover that a criminal will actually serve a much shorter time in prison than was specified in court, and undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole. Our challenge is to bring consistency, honest and transparency to sentencing – for the public, victims of crime and practitioners.
The Vision
This is the extent of the failure of policy. 85,000 offenders in prison and the prediction of 96,000 places required by 2014 represents failure. A failure to deal with crime and a failure to tackle re-offending. It is a national embarrassment that we have failed so dramatically that we have been reduced simply to locking people up in prison, and doing so proportionately more than almost any country in western Europe. We need a fundamental change to the focus of our system towards rehabilitation.
I want to try to set out as Churchill did in 1910, and as clearly as I can, conscious of my own rhetorical limitations, what we can do to address the challenges we face in 2010.
Offenders must pay back to victims and society in recompense for the harm they have caused. So we want to explore allowing for deductions from the earnings of prisoners in properly paid work to contribute towards services for victims, as a way of making amends for their crimes.
It’s clear that centralised direction and targets will either be inefficient or ineffective. We can no longer afford either. So we need to empower local agencies – whether they are criminal justice agencies or health services or Jobcentre Plus – to work together in tackling those entrenched social issues faced by many offenders.
We must work with communities to build public confidence in the system. Funding and decision-making must be devolved to local groups; greater volunteering; and engaging the voluntary sector to run innovative services that tackle the root of the problems and provide value for money.
We must build public confidence in the criminal justice system. That means an evidence-based approach, sharing information about what works in the system and ensuring those who work in it are equipped to do the job. We want the criminal justice system to be judged by its ability to deliver results not on the basis of a blizzard of announcements.
The incentives must be right. So we will overhaul the current target-based system. And offer stronger incentives by opening up competition in penal services and paying providers by results. As many of you will know, we are currently running a competition to select national framework providers of community payback services. Probation Trusts are also taking a Best Value approach to reviewing their current community payback provision. And we are very interested by the work starting soon on Social Impact Bonds in Peterborough Prison, where we will reward social investors if they reduce the reoffending of short sentenced prisoners. We intend to build on this work by develop proposals to pay independent providers to reduce reoffending, paid for by the savings this new approach will generate for the criminal justice system.
We have a historic opportunity to look at how Restorative Justice can be introduced into the criminal justice system. I have met with representatives from the Restorative Justice Consortium, and I have asked them to work with my officials on how we could embed restorative justice measures across every phase of the criminal justice process: from pre-trial right through to interventions in prisons to prepare offenders for release.
These are radical changes by any measure. And they give us the chance to empower organisations left out of the process for so long. We want to listen to new ideas to improve the criminal justice system, and we want listen to a wide range of groups: from the established and respected organisations such as NACRO through to the small community-based organisations – our door is open. I am keen to explore how we carry out this engagement in a structured and effective manner. So as part of that process, I will be hosting round-table events with voluntary sector organisations to discuss their ideas in depth.
Assessment of Sentencing
Finally, we will also assess the sentencing framework. We will have a comprehensive examination of how we can increase consistency, honesty and transparency. It will look in detail at the full range of penalties and restorative measures available in the criminal justice system in both the adult and youth sentencing framework, making sure that appropriate links are made between the two.
In particular, we will examine proposals for reform through a system of minimum/maximum sentencing. We want to increase public confidence in the criminal justice system by improving honesty in sentencing. The offender will serve a minimum period in prison as set by the judge in court. The victim, family and witness will know that the offender will not be released any earlier than this point. The judge would also set a maximum period to be served and the offender has to earn any release earlier than this point by, for example, complying with the prison regime and actively engaging in rehabilitation. This is just common sense.
For too many years the sentence passed by the court has been halved or had a third taken off, or all manner of adjustments made. I want to see the minimal custodial sentence being exactly that, the minimum time that must be spent in custody. I am not advocating doubling sentences or increasing sentence lengths. But I do want to do away with countless changes to legislation that have meant sentences don’t make much sense to anyone unless they are an experienced criminal lawyer.
This is a complex subject. Making it simpler is good for the courts, good for justice and good for the public. This is an opportunity for everyone to have their voice heard. I know that NACRO and others will have views on the sentencing framework. So let me just reiterate: I want to hear them.
Conclusion
The Coalition Government marks a new start. None of this is going to be easy. And we will have to make some very tough decisions. We are all going to have to make radical changes to the way we deliver services.
We are presented with a profound opportunity. We will take the time needed to get this right. We are consulting widely before bringing forward plans for reform in a Green paper in the autumn, will listen again to the reaction to our proposals and then move to a coherent package of legislation in the second Parliamentary session.
Punishment and public protection can and should be balanced with the effective rehabilitation of offenders. Offenders must be rehabilitated. Potential offenders diverted from their current path. Only by doing that will we reduce the number of tomorrow’s victims. And only then will we build public trust in a criminal justice system which will sustain a mood and temper of the public towards the treatment of crime and criminals that will enable us to pass the test of civilisation in the 21st century.
Justice Minister, Crispin Blunt, has given a speech on the direction and reform of the criminal justice system at NACRO, West Norwood Centre
22 July 2010
NACRO, West Norwood Centre
Introduction
Churchill’s parliamentary career lasted well over half a century and inevitably contained some less than successful moments. But what defined him was his ability to call the big the great issues right and to encapsulate them in soaring rhetoric, that in 1940 rallied the whole of the free world in the face of tyranny. In 30 years time people will be marking the 100th anniversary of those speeches. I’m delighted to mark 30 years sooner the 100th anniversary of as great a speech dealing with crime and criminality.
On 20th July 1910 he made the following observation in the House of Commons:
'The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country.'
(Winston Churchill, Home Secretary, House of Commons, July 20th, 1910)
What has happened to our civilisation against this test in the last 100 years.? Anyone sharing Churchill’s analysis and his humanity in 1910 would be astonished at some of today’s popular attitudes to crime and punishment, certainly those expressed in the less reflective parts of the media. But they would also be appalled by much of the history of the succeeding 100 years in which Churchill played such a prominent part, when man’s inhumanity to man was all too evident, usually on the basis of race or religion let alone where individuals might be expected to have responsibility for their actions as criminals. By this test,and others, our civilisation hasn’t much improved in the last century.
Penal reform was a controversial issue in 1910. It is controversial today. But I have detected a shift in opinion in the wake of the Justice Secretary’s recent speech on how we address offenders, not least in our use of prison in this country. A shift Churchill would have approved.
100 years ago Churchill wound up his address with this incredibly powerful peroration:
‘A calm and dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused against the state, and even of convicted criminals against the state, a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment, a desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment, tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerating processes, and an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man these are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it.’
It could not be more appropriate than to mark this centenary than with Nacro, with your own long and admirable history, and being the nation’s leading organization wholly true to the values Churchill expressed so powerfully 100 years ago. Your vision for “a safer society where everyone belongs, human rights are respected and preventing crime means tackling social exclusion and re-integrating those who offend” may not quite scale the rhetorical heights of England’s greatest political speaker of the 20th century. But they are exactly the themes I want to talk about today: how we have progressed, or not, in the last 100 years.
Churchill had become Home Secretary in February 1910. He was passing through his Liberal phase, and would no doubt be delighted by the current alliance of his two old political homes.
His predecessor as Home Secretary, Herbert Gladstone, offered him some advice on taking up office. He suggested:
‘As regards prisons it won’t be a bad thing to give a harassed department some rest.’
So within 6 days of taking office he instigated a major reform of penal policy.
We are doing the same. As the Secretary of State set out in his speech on 30 June, the priorities of the Ministry are to punish offenders, protect the public and provide access to justice. But we want to initiate a more constructive approach to rehabilitation and sentencing, and re-think whether putting more and more people into custody really delivers on making people safer. We styled it a rehabilitation revolution in our programme for government. And now we are getting stuck into it. Churchill’s initiative has much in common with the opportunity open to us: to transform our criminal justice system and our attitude to, and treatment, of offenders.
So I am visiting as many prisons, probation trusts and youth offending teams across the country as I can. I want to hear the views of everyone working with offenders – the people at the sharp end who know what does and does not work. I want to find out more about their day to day challenges. I want to listen to how they would improve the system. I have already met many very good people out there, doing some very good work. I commend their commitment and professionalism. And I am proud to have overall responsibility for over 70,000 people managing offenders in the Prison and the Probation services.
But it is clear that in many areas the criminal justice system is just not working. It is failing the people who serve in that system, it is failing the offenders managed by that system and by their victims, now and in the future. It is failing the public.
In 1910 the system was also in need of urgent reform. Churchill made a number of proposals and on reading his speech it is extraordinary the number of his ideas that link to the challenges we face today.
Fines
First he altered the regulations for payments of fines. 90,000 people a year were committed to prison because they could not pay a fine immediately. Churchill proposed a period of grace to pay. A simple but effective measure to stop people going unnecessarily to prison.
Now there are many ways for offenders to pay fines. The days of thousands of fine defaulters being held in prison are thankfully long gone. But the fine remains important. We often forget that the fine is by far the most common sentence in the criminal courts. Fines play an important role: punishing offending but also offering reparation to victims of crime. But their use has declined. We need to ask why that is and what we can do about it. Financial compensation, to the victim directly and to society, should be an important part both of restorative justice and punishment. Restoration has played too limited a role in our justice system. I would argue it is good for the victim, good for the offender and good for society to examine how we can widen its role – and we will do so as major part of our assessment of sentencing and approach to rehabilitation.
Young offenders
The second major reform he proposed was on the treatment of young offenders, [those aged between 16 and 21] – another area where many were sent to prison unnecessarily. Many of these young offenders found themselves in prison because they also had not paid fines or had committed very minor offences. And Churchill saw there was clear evidence of a failure of social justice amongst those young people imprisoned:
‘It is an evil which falls only on the sons of the working classes. The sons of other classes may commit many of the same kind of offences and in boisterous and exuberant moments, whether at Oxford or anywhere else, may do things for which the working classes are committed to prison, although injury may not be inflicted on anyone.’
I do not know whether this has any connection to the conversion of Oxford Gaol into a luxury hotel, but then there may be connections between the nearest prison to Oxford these days HMP Bullingdon and other institutions of that name. I have yet to investigate these and, on reflection, probably won’t.
Oxford gaol’s conversion to a luxury hotel is an example of the imaginative use of the redundant prison estate we still need in order to modernise the estate. This is why the New Prisons Programme will continue. It gives us the chance to release parts of our estate that are plainly unfit for the 21st century and that includes HMP Lancaster Castle, which has been a gaol since the 12th century. I am pleased to say that today we are opening discussions with Lancaster City Council and the Duchy of Lancaster with the intention of returning the prison to the Duchy of Lancaster who own the site and potentially turning the building into a heritage site – a rather more appropriate use for this castle than remaining a part of the prison estate.
Today we are not wrestling with the same offences committed by different social groups being dealt with differently. We are dealing with the impact of social failure upon the justice system. To take one startling example, around a quarter of prisoners were in care as children.
Churchill’s response was to propose a “defaulter’s drill” a way of dealing with minor offences and mere rowdyism: to punish without imprisoning. And today our challenge is to deliver more effective community punishments to deal with anti-social behaviour and the failure to follow earlier community orders. The desperate resort of sentencers to short prison sentences in the absence of a viable alternative is exactly that. Desperate. Because we know short sentences are likely to significantly increase the chance of the offender reoffending after release.
It is virtually impossible to do anything productive with offenders on short sentences. And many of them end up losing their jobs, their homes and their families while inside. Part of our challenge today is to deliver more effective community punishments.
We need to find today’s equivalent of defaulters’ drill. We are looking carefully at the current delivery of community payback to see if we can make this more robust and a more credible vehicle for delivering both punishment in the community and restoration for society as a whole. There are good examples of effective community payback schemes, but there is too much evidence that there is all too much time spent in indolent weeding or rail painting whilst the only actual benefit is some community reassurance from offenders being seen in their fluorescent jackets apparently doing something. It would be so much better if the apparent action was real and of economic and social value. Offenders must be focused on project completion so it is in their interests to complete tasks quickly and efficiently. The orange jackets fulfil a purpose, but must be accompanied by a worthwhile task, properly led and goal oriented. This carries the possibility of giving offenders a sense of a job well done, which will contribute to their rehabilitation, as well of being of real value to the community.
Balancing the need for punishment and rehabilitation
But the quality that shines through Churchill’s speech is his humanity towards the offender. And we should not blind ourselves to the fact that in some ways we have made pitifully little progress since 1910. Today too many offenders need a great deal of support because of the hand played to them by circumstance. They have suffered abuse, we know that around half of women in prison have experienced domestic violence, and up to a third have been victims of sexual abuse. Many are isolated from or fail to have a support network of friends and family. They have been failed by absent parents. They have suffered childhood abuse. Many have failed in the education system, abused drugs and alcohol or ended up homeless. Nearly half of sentenced offenders have emotional wellbeing issues including mental health illness. One in three report that they have an accommodation ‘need’. These figures are shocking enough. But we believe the problem to be even greater. There is cycle to crime – from generation to generation. An estimated 160,000 children have a parent in prison; they are three times more likely to engage in anti-social, and delinquent behaviour than their peers, whilst 65% of boys with a convicted father go on to offend themselves.
I welcome the work that Iain Duncan Smith has done via the Centre for Social Justice and is doing as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to develop practical ideas to move from Breakdown Britain to breakthrough Britain. We now have a Cabinet Committee on Social Justice and it’s task will be to drive change across Whitehall to tackle the issues that put many young offenders into the criminal justice system in the first place.
Our Big Society vision is all about involving individuals , communities, and voluntary and community organisations - not just in tackling crime and re-offending but in helping to keep people out of the criminal justice system in the first place. We have to get the public,private and voluntary sector working together to address disadvantage and build stronger more purposeful communities in which diverse individuals have a stake. The Criminal Justice System is already a locally delivered service, and depends on ordinary people playing their part in delivering justice. But we want members of the public, communities, and non-governmental bodies to be even more involved in reducing crime and re-offending, and helping build confidence in the justice system. This includes increasing the role of the voluntary sector and social enterprises in working with offenders and ex offenders and making use of the enormous potential of volunteers to improve their communities. Already we have a huge number of dedicated volunteers working across the criminal justice system including 14,000 special constables; 30,000 volunteer magistrates, 6,500 volunteers in Victim Support and thousands more working in prisons and with offenders and ex-offenders in the community. Building the Big Society will also mean providing information at a local level so the public can hold agencies to account and local agencies are better informed when developing solutions to tackle and prevent crime.
A particular issue involves challenging families to tackle the cycle of crime from one generation to the next. The Justice Committee’s excellent report, ‘Cutting Crime: The Case for Justice Reinvestment,’ will inform our work. I want much greater recognition of the embedded links between poor social outcomes and crime and re-offending, right across communities and government. The ministerial group on homelessness offers us the chance for a step change in how we house offenders.
And the government is just as committed to welfare reform. So that work is the best solution for people, offering them a route out of poverty. And the best chance for offenders, providing them with the stability they need to stop offending and become someone who contributes to society, not damages it.
We are doing this because, as Churchill told the Commons, the first principle of prison reform:
‘…should be to prevent as many people getting there at all.’
Sentencing Debate
We all need to think through these social issues. And we need to have a proper debate about sentencing. It is too easy to appear tough on crime by raising the rhetoric on sentencing and by offering knee jerk responses to awful events. But hard cases make bad law and the debate has been far from constructive. Other European countries have managed to have sensible and balanced debates about penal policy. The quality of debate in this country has simply been too influenced by populist rhetoric.
So these attempts to appear ever tougher cannot go on. We just cannot continue to spend more on a system that does not have the trust of the public and which does not break the cycle of crime. We have a major opportunity – to think carefully, creatively and constructively about how we reform the criminal justice system. So that it protects the public better, prevents crime, rehabilitates offenders and cuts re-offending.
Short custodial sentences & persistent offenders
When Churchill proposed his reforms in 1910 he was accused of being “soft” on crime by some who did not actually choose to look at what he had proposed. Some things don’t change. Serious offenders who commit serious crimes are still going to go to prison. What the Justice Secretary called for was a more sensible way of dealing with offenders.
We need this debate because we are just not doing so at the moment. Around half of all crime is committed by people convicted in the past. And of that half, a small group of these are committing a disproportionately large number of offences. This much is clear: we are just not stopping the ‘revolving door’ of offenders in the criminal justice system. Most short sentenced prisoners receive no supervision or support on release. Half of all adult offenders reoffend within one year of release from prison – and the rate of re-offending has risen in recent years. And it is not just about adults, we need to manage young offenders effectively. And if you don’t get their treatment right, the young offenders of today are the repeat offenders of tomorrow. This must change.
We must end this cycle of re-offending. Time in prison must be more than the deprivation of liberty but an opportunity for offenders to gain skills so that they become productive members of society. Prisons must focus on getting offenders off drugs, into work and with support to find a home to go to. By doing this we can prepare offenders for release and we can help them to stop reoffending.
IPPs
Having said that our system is failing in many regards this is particularly true of indeterminate sentences for public protection, universally known as IPPs. In 1910 indeterminate sentences were also a hot topic of debate. The House of Commons had recently rejected the idea of preventative detention but there was still pressure on Churchill to introduce indeterminate sentences. He resisted that pressure, saying:
‘I am opposed in principle to indeterminate detention except on purely medical grounds.’
IPPs have proved to be difficult for the courts and for prisons. Many offenders on IPP sentences haven’t been released from prison long after their tariffs have expired. The last government believed that these indeterminate sentences would add about 900 to the prison population. Today there are over 6,000 prisoners on IPPs and being added to at a rate of about 70 a month, meanwhile the Parole Board are releasing about one a week, with nearly 3,000 now in custody beyond their tariff for punishment. In my view the legislation on IPP sentences was drawn too widely meaning that some offenders should never have received an IPP but sentencers felt compelled by the law to impose one. The 2008 changes to the law which begin to restrict the use of IPP is one admission of these failings. Other offenders simply couldn’t in the time or with the resources available convince the Parole Board that they had addressed their offending behaviour. But IPPs have added thousands to prison numbers and the IPP population continues to grow.
There is an important debate to be had on indeterminate sentences and there have been some authoritative contributions already on IPPs from the Inspectorates and recently the Prison Reform Trust. We will present our proposals in the Green Paper, but I have not seen anything to suggest that Churchill’s instinct was not correct. So whilst this is without doubt a complex area, as many aspects of sentencing are. I welcome the debate on this issue and I hope that many of you will contribute to it.
Serious Offenders – Grendon & Frankland
Here however I want to emphasise an obvious but important point. Prisons and the supervision that follows have an important role in protecting the public from dangerous and violent offenders. Since my appointment I have visited both Frankland and Grendon Prisons, two prisons dealing with offenders who have committed serious crimes.
Grendon has six wings operating as autonomous therapeutic communities dealing with serious sex and violent offenders. I was, as many have been before, impressed by the approach of the staff and prisoners in those therapeutic circles. Such an approach may not be appropriate for all offenders and I recognize the cost of such intensive work, but I want to think about how that kind of treatment of offenders – with its focus on rehabilitation and treatment and not just on punishment - could be explored elsewhere in our prison estate.
This is no soft option. It is hard work. And we need to do it to stop crime in the future – and stop new victims of crime being created.
Arts and events in Prisons
I want to mention one other proposal from Churchill that struck a chord with me. Churchill noted that
‘we have got a class of men in our prisons who need brain food of the most ordinary character.’
He notes that
‘There have from time to time been occasional lectures given in the prisons, and a few months ago the Somerset Light Infantry, quartered near, had their band in Dartmoor Prison and it played to the convicts. It was an amazing thing the effect which was produced on all these poor people, and their letters for a month after had been eloquent in recognition of the fact.’
I have to say that not all Members of the Commons were quite as enthusiastic about military music with one suggesting that:
‘The music will be an added punishment to some.’
But there is a serious point here. We recognise that arts activities can play a valuable role in helping offenders to address issues such as communication problems and low self-esteem and enabling them to engage in programmes that address their offending behaviour I confess before getting this job I was not aware of Prison Service Instruction number 50 of 2008, though was vaguely conscious of some row in the tabloids about offenders being recorded as enjoying themselves. As a measure it was typical of the last administration’s flakiness under pressure. At the slightest whiff of criticism from the popular press policy tended to get changed and the consequence of an absurd overreaction to offenders being exposed to comedy in prison was this deleterious, damaging and daft instruction. I’m pleased to have marked the actual day of the 100th anniversary of Churchill’s speech on Tuesday by rescinding it.
The Challenges
I have outlined some of the challenges we face with young offenders, with persistent offenders and with the culture of the debate about penal policy. This has led to more and more offenders being locked up for longer and longer without making a real difference to their rehabilitation. Let me add a few more challenges.
We face the harsh reality of rescuing the public finances or as the Justice Secretary so pithily put it in our area of responsibility effecting a change from an era of policy making with a chequebook in one hand and the Daily Mail in the other. Our ambition to reform the system must be seen in the context of the constraints on the public finances. Achieving savings will mean driving value for money and delivering more from less. But ultimately the test of an effective criminal justice system is not the money poured into it, but on its results. Over the summer we will be developing options on how we serve the public in the future with a significantly lower budget.
I have talked a lot today about offenders. For every offender, there is a victim, whether that victim is an individual, a business or the public at large. And we rely on victims and the public to engage with the system, to report crime, and to come forward to give evidence. While criminal justice agencies have begun to do more to support victims through the justice process, there are still too many times when victims falls through the cracks. A survey of victims suggests, for example, that less than half (43%) are say they were offered the chance to make a Victim Personal Statement so they can make clear the impact the crime has had on them. And less than half (42%) of victims say they have the meaning of sentences explained to them by the criminal justice agencies. So which I suppose is hardly suprising given the difficulty of explaining current sentences and what they actually might mean. Alongside our plans for a rehabilitation revolution, we will also be considering how we can ensure that those victims who need help to recover from crime receive the right support at the right time.
And finally, our sentencing framework itself presents a challenge. It is highly complicated, utterly confusing and ultimately disingenuous. Sentences bear no resemblance to the time actually served in prison. This leads to confusion for victims of crime. It creates a sense of injustice when the public discover that a criminal will actually serve a much shorter time in prison than was specified in court, and undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole. Our challenge is to bring consistency, honest and transparency to sentencing – for the public, victims of crime and practitioners.
The Vision
This is the extent of the failure of policy. 85,000 offenders in prison and the prediction of 96,000 places required by 2014 represents failure. A failure to deal with crime and a failure to tackle re-offending. It is a national embarrassment that we have failed so dramatically that we have been reduced simply to locking people up in prison, and doing so proportionately more than almost any country in western Europe. We need a fundamental change to the focus of our system towards rehabilitation.
I want to try to set out as Churchill did in 1910, and as clearly as I can, conscious of my own rhetorical limitations, what we can do to address the challenges we face in 2010.
Offenders must pay back to victims and society in recompense for the harm they have caused. So we want to explore allowing for deductions from the earnings of prisoners in properly paid work to contribute towards services for victims, as a way of making amends for their crimes.
It’s clear that centralised direction and targets will either be inefficient or ineffective. We can no longer afford either. So we need to empower local agencies – whether they are criminal justice agencies or health services or Jobcentre Plus – to work together in tackling those entrenched social issues faced by many offenders.
We must work with communities to build public confidence in the system. Funding and decision-making must be devolved to local groups; greater volunteering; and engaging the voluntary sector to run innovative services that tackle the root of the problems and provide value for money.
We must build public confidence in the criminal justice system. That means an evidence-based approach, sharing information about what works in the system and ensuring those who work in it are equipped to do the job. We want the criminal justice system to be judged by its ability to deliver results not on the basis of a blizzard of announcements.
The incentives must be right. So we will overhaul the current target-based system. And offer stronger incentives by opening up competition in penal services and paying providers by results. As many of you will know, we are currently running a competition to select national framework providers of community payback services. Probation Trusts are also taking a Best Value approach to reviewing their current community payback provision. And we are very interested by the work starting soon on Social Impact Bonds in Peterborough Prison, where we will reward social investors if they reduce the reoffending of short sentenced prisoners. We intend to build on this work by develop proposals to pay independent providers to reduce reoffending, paid for by the savings this new approach will generate for the criminal justice system.
We have a historic opportunity to look at how Restorative Justice can be introduced into the criminal justice system. I have met with representatives from the Restorative Justice Consortium, and I have asked them to work with my officials on how we could embed restorative justice measures across every phase of the criminal justice process: from pre-trial right through to interventions in prisons to prepare offenders for release.
These are radical changes by any measure. And they give us the chance to empower organisations left out of the process for so long. We want to listen to new ideas to improve the criminal justice system, and we want listen to a wide range of groups: from the established and respected organisations such as NACRO through to the small community-based organisations – our door is open. I am keen to explore how we carry out this engagement in a structured and effective manner. So as part of that process, I will be hosting round-table events with voluntary sector organisations to discuss their ideas in depth.
Assessment of Sentencing
Finally, we will also assess the sentencing framework. We will have a comprehensive examination of how we can increase consistency, honesty and transparency. It will look in detail at the full range of penalties and restorative measures available in the criminal justice system in both the adult and youth sentencing framework, making sure that appropriate links are made between the two.
In particular, we will examine proposals for reform through a system of minimum/maximum sentencing. We want to increase public confidence in the criminal justice system by improving honesty in sentencing. The offender will serve a minimum period in prison as set by the judge in court. The victim, family and witness will know that the offender will not be released any earlier than this point. The judge would also set a maximum period to be served and the offender has to earn any release earlier than this point by, for example, complying with the prison regime and actively engaging in rehabilitation. This is just common sense.
For too many years the sentence passed by the court has been halved or had a third taken off, or all manner of adjustments made. I want to see the minimal custodial sentence being exactly that, the minimum time that must be spent in custody. I am not advocating doubling sentences or increasing sentence lengths. But I do want to do away with countless changes to legislation that have meant sentences don’t make much sense to anyone unless they are an experienced criminal lawyer.
This is a complex subject. Making it simpler is good for the courts, good for justice and good for the public. This is an opportunity for everyone to have their voice heard. I know that NACRO and others will have views on the sentencing framework. So let me just reiterate: I want to hear them.
Conclusion
The Coalition Government marks a new start. None of this is going to be easy. And we will have to make some very tough decisions. We are all going to have to make radical changes to the way we deliver services.
We are presented with a profound opportunity. We will take the time needed to get this right. We are consulting widely before bringing forward plans for reform in a Green paper in the autumn, will listen again to the reaction to our proposals and then move to a coherent package of legislation in the second Parliamentary session.
Punishment and public protection can and should be balanced with the effective rehabilitation of offenders. Offenders must be rehabilitated. Potential offenders diverted from their current path. Only by doing that will we reduce the number of tomorrow’s victims. And only then will we build public trust in a criminal justice system which will sustain a mood and temper of the public towards the treatment of crime and criminals that will enable us to pass the test of civilisation in the 21st century.