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.
Site Meter
Sunday, October 31, 2010
What part of this does the coalition not understand?
What part of this does the coalition not understand?
Speech by Thorbjørn Jagland
Secretary General of the Council of Europe
High-Level Conference
on the future of the European Court of Human Rights,
18 February 2010, Interlaken
"Above all, we need a better and more systematic use of the principle of subsidiarity. State Parties have the primary responsibility to respect human rights, to prevent violations and to remedy them when they occur.
All States parties have now incorporated the Convention into their national legal systems, but not all have done so with satisfactory effect.
What we need to achieve is a genuine structural integration of the Convention into national systems, in order to secure its direct application; we need a better implementation of its provisions, including, above all, the obligation to provide effective domestic remedies for alleged violations.
The Convention cannot be fully and effectively implemented at national level unless the authority of the Court’s case-law is properly recognised in the national legal order.
Most obviously, States must promptly and fully execute judgments in cases to which they are party, including any general measures that may be required".
Speech by Thorbjørn Jagland
Secretary General of the Council of Europe
High-Level Conference
on the future of the European Court of Human Rights,
18 February 2010, Interlaken
"Above all, we need a better and more systematic use of the principle of subsidiarity. State Parties have the primary responsibility to respect human rights, to prevent violations and to remedy them when they occur.
All States parties have now incorporated the Convention into their national legal systems, but not all have done so with satisfactory effect.
What we need to achieve is a genuine structural integration of the Convention into national systems, in order to secure its direct application; we need a better implementation of its provisions, including, above all, the obligation to provide effective domestic remedies for alleged violations.
The Convention cannot be fully and effectively implemented at national level unless the authority of the Court’s case-law is properly recognised in the national legal order.
Most obviously, States must promptly and fully execute judgments in cases to which they are party, including any general measures that may be required".
Prisoners on indeterminate sentences 'left in limbo' over parole dates
Prisoners on indeterminate sentences 'left in limbo' over parole dates
Call for fast-track review of thousands of
inmates who are judged to be still a risk to the public
The government should fast-track the parole hearings of almost 2,500 prisoners who have served their minimum sentence but are still being held in jail for "public protection", a leading barrister has said.
Peter Lodder QC, chairman-elect of the Bar Council, said there were fears prisoners could face a "Kafkaesque" situation where they had no idea when they would be released. He warned that the growing numbers placed on indeterminate sentences threatened the "contract" between prison staff and inmates that ensured the smooth running of jails.
"One can see how for prisoners in this situation, where there is no light at the end of the tunnel, there is little incentive and a great deal of frustration, and that is what leads to the harm to emotional and mental wellbeing," Lodder said.
"If you have an ordinary sentence – a determinate sentence – then one-half of that sentence will not be served upon the basis that you are well behaved. That is an understanding – a contract – that makes sure prisons run smoothly. On these [indeterminate] sentences, there is no such provision."
Lodder, who will take over leadership of the Bar Council in January, added: "When you disenfranchise people to such a significant extent… you are bound to create a resentment."
Sentences of imprisonment for public protection – or IPPs – were introduced in 2005 for offenders deemed to be dangerous. They carry no automatic right to release and 42% of the 5,500 prisoners serving such sentences have now passed their minimum tariff. Lodder said the sentences were introduced as part of a "tough-on-crime" drive.
"The government needs to accelerate the parole reviews for prisoners in this situation. [It] needs to consider whether once these prisoners have served the minimum term they can be released, and what appropriate and speedy mechanism there can be to facilitate that," he said.
He appreciated there would be concern if those who were released reoffended, "but what should not happen is that there is a disproportionate fear of one of these prisoners reoffending or a disproportionate reaction when one of them does. In other words, [the government] need political nerve."
One of the problems was a "risk-averse culture" on parole boards, Lodder said, because of the difficulty in proving that someone was no longer a danger.
Others warned that prisoners were suffering from mental health issues as a result of uncertainty over their sentences. A report by the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health found that more than half of IPP prisoners have problems with "emotional wellbeing" and almost one in five receive psychiatric treatment. Many told researchers the lack of a release date to work towards had damaged relationships with family and friends.
Dominic Williamson, chief executive of the charity the Revolving Doors charity, which offers support to offenders, said many felt left in "limbo".
Paul McDowell, the chief executive of Nacro, the crime-reduction charity, said of his time as governor of Brixton prison in south London: "I have a vivid memory that one of the most common things was people coming up to me and saying: 'I am an IPP prisoner – there is nothing I can do, I feel trapped in this cycle and I can't get out of it.' Those sort of sentences were ill-thought-out, rushed through, a kneejerk reaction to a media storm. They are grossly unfair and not in the tradition of British justice with its fair-play approach."
The Ministry of Justice said it was carrying out a full assessment of sentencing and rehabilitation policy, including IPPs. A spokeswoman said: "There is no question that we must protect the public from the most dangerous criminals in our society. However, we must also ensure the courts have the power to make the right response to stop people committing crime."
Related content...
Why was my friend Peter sent to jail with no time set for his release?
Not before time, the government is to review the use of indeterminate sentences, but too late for some people
Call for fast-track review of thousands of
inmates who are judged to be still a risk to the public
The government should fast-track the parole hearings of almost 2,500 prisoners who have served their minimum sentence but are still being held in jail for "public protection", a leading barrister has said.
Peter Lodder QC, chairman-elect of the Bar Council, said there were fears prisoners could face a "Kafkaesque" situation where they had no idea when they would be released. He warned that the growing numbers placed on indeterminate sentences threatened the "contract" between prison staff and inmates that ensured the smooth running of jails.
"One can see how for prisoners in this situation, where there is no light at the end of the tunnel, there is little incentive and a great deal of frustration, and that is what leads to the harm to emotional and mental wellbeing," Lodder said.
"If you have an ordinary sentence – a determinate sentence – then one-half of that sentence will not be served upon the basis that you are well behaved. That is an understanding – a contract – that makes sure prisons run smoothly. On these [indeterminate] sentences, there is no such provision."
Lodder, who will take over leadership of the Bar Council in January, added: "When you disenfranchise people to such a significant extent… you are bound to create a resentment."
Sentences of imprisonment for public protection – or IPPs – were introduced in 2005 for offenders deemed to be dangerous. They carry no automatic right to release and 42% of the 5,500 prisoners serving such sentences have now passed their minimum tariff. Lodder said the sentences were introduced as part of a "tough-on-crime" drive.
"The government needs to accelerate the parole reviews for prisoners in this situation. [It] needs to consider whether once these prisoners have served the minimum term they can be released, and what appropriate and speedy mechanism there can be to facilitate that," he said.
He appreciated there would be concern if those who were released reoffended, "but what should not happen is that there is a disproportionate fear of one of these prisoners reoffending or a disproportionate reaction when one of them does. In other words, [the government] need political nerve."
One of the problems was a "risk-averse culture" on parole boards, Lodder said, because of the difficulty in proving that someone was no longer a danger.
Others warned that prisoners were suffering from mental health issues as a result of uncertainty over their sentences. A report by the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health found that more than half of IPP prisoners have problems with "emotional wellbeing" and almost one in five receive psychiatric treatment. Many told researchers the lack of a release date to work towards had damaged relationships with family and friends.
Dominic Williamson, chief executive of the charity the Revolving Doors charity, which offers support to offenders, said many felt left in "limbo".
Paul McDowell, the chief executive of Nacro, the crime-reduction charity, said of his time as governor of Brixton prison in south London: "I have a vivid memory that one of the most common things was people coming up to me and saying: 'I am an IPP prisoner – there is nothing I can do, I feel trapped in this cycle and I can't get out of it.' Those sort of sentences were ill-thought-out, rushed through, a kneejerk reaction to a media storm. They are grossly unfair and not in the tradition of British justice with its fair-play approach."
The Ministry of Justice said it was carrying out a full assessment of sentencing and rehabilitation policy, including IPPs. A spokeswoman said: "There is no question that we must protect the public from the most dangerous criminals in our society. However, we must also ensure the courts have the power to make the right response to stop people committing crime."
Related content...
Why was my friend Peter sent to jail with no time set for his release?
Not before time, the government is to review the use of indeterminate sentences, but too late for some people
Tory minister, Andrew Mitchell, aided tycoon who gave him £40,000
Tory minister, Andrew Mitchell, aided tycoon who gave him £40,000
Andrew Mitchell helped one of the world’s richest cocoa dealers to overcome a trading ban after receiving a £40,000 bribe from his company
A Tory cabinet minister intervened on behalf of one of the world’s richest cocoa dealers to help him overcome a trading ban after receiving £40,000 in donations from his company.
Andrew Mitchell, the international development secretary, acted after being approached by the millionaire cocoa dealer who was seeking to lift an official ban on his firm trading in west Ghana.
Weeks after the general election, the businessman, Anthony Ward, wrote to Mitchell asking him to lobby the Ghanaian government “at a presidential level” after it banned Armajaro Holdings from trading because one of its contractors was involved in smuggling cocoa out of the west African state.
Internal government documents reveal that Mitchell phoned the British high commissioner in Ghana on the matter, even though it was outside the remit of his department.
On the same day, Mitchell’s officials contacted the Foreign Office, saying the matter required “urgent attention”.
Henry Bellingham, the Foreign Office minister, subsequently lobbied the vice-president of Ghana on behalf of Ward’s company. The partial trading ban on his firm’s cocoa operation in Ghana has now been lifted, except in one district of the country.
Ward made headlines earlier this year when he cornered a big chunk of the cocoa market. Nicknamed “Chocfinger”, he is estimated to be worth £36m. His customers include Cadbury.
Paul Farrelly, the Labour MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme, said it was “naive at best” for Mitchell to have become personally involved in the case. “There will always be the accusation that, through political donations or contributions to a minister’s office, influence is being sought or bought.”
The ministerial code says: “Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.”
The internal documents, obtained by The Sunday Times under the Freedom of Information Act, show that even Foreign Office civil servants raised questions as to why the government should intervene to help Ward’s company.
One official wrote: “Is this ... something we should lobby on? Or should the UK company realise they have broken the rules and have to pay the price?”
Armajaro Holdings gave sums totalling £40,000 to Mitchell’s parliamentary office between August 2006 and December 2009. He declared them in the register of members’ interests. The company separately gave £50,000 to the Conservative party in May 2004.
Mitchell’s intervention is the first case the government has faced of a potential conflict of interest.
A spokesman for Mitchell denied any wrongdoing. “The letter from Armajaro was dealt with in accordance with normal ministerial procedures.” Ward declined to comment on the letter he wrote to Mitchell.
Source: The Sunday Times (£)
Related content...
Jacqui Smith's pay off for awarding a firm contracts whilst in office is a job now she has left office!
Andrew Mitchell helped one of the world’s richest cocoa dealers to overcome a trading ban after receiving a £40,000 bribe from his company
A Tory cabinet minister intervened on behalf of one of the world’s richest cocoa dealers to help him overcome a trading ban after receiving £40,000 in donations from his company.
Andrew Mitchell, the international development secretary, acted after being approached by the millionaire cocoa dealer who was seeking to lift an official ban on his firm trading in west Ghana.
Weeks after the general election, the businessman, Anthony Ward, wrote to Mitchell asking him to lobby the Ghanaian government “at a presidential level” after it banned Armajaro Holdings from trading because one of its contractors was involved in smuggling cocoa out of the west African state.
Internal government documents reveal that Mitchell phoned the British high commissioner in Ghana on the matter, even though it was outside the remit of his department.
On the same day, Mitchell’s officials contacted the Foreign Office, saying the matter required “urgent attention”.
Henry Bellingham, the Foreign Office minister, subsequently lobbied the vice-president of Ghana on behalf of Ward’s company. The partial trading ban on his firm’s cocoa operation in Ghana has now been lifted, except in one district of the country.
Ward made headlines earlier this year when he cornered a big chunk of the cocoa market. Nicknamed “Chocfinger”, he is estimated to be worth £36m. His customers include Cadbury.
Paul Farrelly, the Labour MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme, said it was “naive at best” for Mitchell to have become personally involved in the case. “There will always be the accusation that, through political donations or contributions to a minister’s office, influence is being sought or bought.”
The ministerial code says: “Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.”
The internal documents, obtained by The Sunday Times under the Freedom of Information Act, show that even Foreign Office civil servants raised questions as to why the government should intervene to help Ward’s company.
One official wrote: “Is this ... something we should lobby on? Or should the UK company realise they have broken the rules and have to pay the price?”
Armajaro Holdings gave sums totalling £40,000 to Mitchell’s parliamentary office between August 2006 and December 2009. He declared them in the register of members’ interests. The company separately gave £50,000 to the Conservative party in May 2004.
Mitchell’s intervention is the first case the government has faced of a potential conflict of interest.
A spokesman for Mitchell denied any wrongdoing. “The letter from Armajaro was dealt with in accordance with normal ministerial procedures.” Ward declined to comment on the letter he wrote to Mitchell.
Source: The Sunday Times (£)
Related content...
Jacqui Smith's pay off for awarding a firm contracts whilst in office is a job now she has left office!
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Coalition facing split over detention of terror suspects
Coalition facing split over detention of terror suspects
Richard Ford and Frances Gibb
Last updated October 29 2010 7:28PM
A top-level government review of counter-terrorism laws has been delayed amid deep divisions among ministers over controversial orders to detain terrorist suspects.
Ministers are facing an intense behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign by the security services, who warn that abolishing the orders would put public safety at risk of terrorist attack.
Jonathan Evans, head of MI5, has written to David Cameron to say that he cannot guarantee the safety of the public without being able to impose orders on suspects.
The Whitehall battle that has put back any decision until Christmas threatens to split the Coalition on an issue that is fundamental to the Liberal Democrats’ stance on civil liberties.
The party pledged at the general election to scrap the regime of control orders under which terrorist suspects are held under a form of house arrest.
Several senior Conservative ministers are also strongly oppposed to keeping the regime, which has been undermined by a series of key rulings in the courts.
The dispute has been further fuelled with an intervention by Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, The Times has learnt.
He has made clear his opposition to the keeping of the orders in a move that is an acute embarrassment to ministers, as the peer was appointed by the Government specifically to oversee the review of counter-terrorism laws.
The review is being conducted by the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism (OSCT), which is part of the Home Office.
Lord Macdonald is understood to have written to Theresa May, the Home Secretary, telling her that he could not support the retention of control orders.
He would have to make his views clear when he reports on the internal review. The reports will be published at the same time — now expected in mid December rather than a couple of months earlier as originally promised.
“Ken (Lord Macdonald) would go ballistic if the Government decides to keep control orders,” a source said.
The Prime Minister has yet to make a final decision and a fierce battle is waging among senior ministers over the control order regime, a key aspect of the counter-terrorism review.
Ms May, who set up the review, is understood to have been convinced by the security services of the need to retain control orders as a key weapon in the Government’s armoury against terrorism.
This week she is due to deliver her first big speech on counter-terrorism since becoming Home Secretary in May.
But other senior Conservative law and order ministers are against control orders in principle, including Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, and Dominic Grieve, the Attorney-General.
With the Liberal Democrats having pledged to scrap control orders in their election manifesto, the issue threatens to produce the next major split in the Coalition.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: “This is heading to be a coalition car crash. If the public campaigning of the security establishment is anything to go by, imagine what the private lobbying must be like.
“You cannot claim to champion civil liberties whilst reneging on years of opposition to control orders and converting to a belief in indefinite punishment without trial.”
Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, has taken a keen interest in the issue, with one Whitehall source saying that his interventions are causing “huge tensions”.
Six briefing papers have been drawn up by the Home Office review under Charles Farr, the leading counter-terrorism expert in the Home Office.
They cover control orders, pre-trial detention, deportation to countries where assurances about treatment have been given; local authority surveillance powers; stop and search powers and photography in public places.
The lobbying from the security services and the OSCT has made clear to ministers that they regard retaining control orders as a “red line” in the review of terrorism laws.
They also argue that the cost of any alternative such as 24-hour surveillance would be massive in terms of police manpower and finances at a time of budgetary restraint.
There is agreement, however, among ministers that the 28-day limit for holding terror suspects before charge can be reduced to 14 days, with the safeguard that some suspects could be bailed for longer, under conditions such as a ban on travel overseas, and with judicial approval.
Counter-terrorism powers that allow police to stop and search people in designated areas without suspicion are also likely to be abolished.
Figures published this week show that more than 100,000 people were stopped in 2009-10 under the so-called section 44 powers, but no one was arrested for a terrorist offence.
A Home Office spokesman said: “The counter-terrorism review is under way and we will report back shortly. No decisions have yet been made.”
The review was initially expected to report at the end of September, then next week, according to one source.
Ed Balls, the new shadow Home Secretary, is currently meeting security advisers and senior police officers but has not declared the party’s position.
A Labour party spokesperson said: “We would like to achieve a consensus on this critical issue [control orders] if possible.”
Last week Tony McNulty, the former Labour policing minister, admitted that the party had “misjudged control orders, stop and search and other civil rights issues” while in Government. He described control orders as a “clumsy tool”.
Senior Liberal Democrats have written to Mr Cameron arguing that control orders should be scrapped and that any marginal advantage gained from their use was cancelled out by the negative impact on the Muslim community.
Tom Brake, co-chairman of the Liberal Democrats home affairs parliamentary party committee, said: “It is very much a crucial issue for the coalition and in particular the Liberal Democrats. We have consistently opposed control orders.”
Tools to thwart terrorism
• Control orders are used to deal with terror suspects who cannot be deported or tried
• Nine are currently in use
• They were introduced under 2005 anti-terror laws after law lords’ ruling that terror suspects must not be detained without trial
• They put suspects under strict supervision
• Conditions include curfews, bans on whom suspect can meet; tagging; no internet; no passport; daily reporting to police; public transport ban
• Series of court rulings have reduced their scope: in 2009 the law lords ruled that control order suspects had been denied fair trial because they did not know gist of the case against them
• Critics say they amount to house arrest and punishment without trial
• Security services say they are an essential tool
• Police say they might be needed for terrorists released from jail
• Internal Home Office review set up in July by the Government in line with Conservative pledge; Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, former Director of Public Prosecutions, appointed independent reviewer of the Home Office inquiry
Source: Times (£)
Richard Ford and Frances Gibb
Last updated October 29 2010 7:28PM
A top-level government review of counter-terrorism laws has been delayed amid deep divisions among ministers over controversial orders to detain terrorist suspects.
Ministers are facing an intense behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign by the security services, who warn that abolishing the orders would put public safety at risk of terrorist attack.
Jonathan Evans, head of MI5, has written to David Cameron to say that he cannot guarantee the safety of the public without being able to impose orders on suspects.
The Whitehall battle that has put back any decision until Christmas threatens to split the Coalition on an issue that is fundamental to the Liberal Democrats’ stance on civil liberties.
The party pledged at the general election to scrap the regime of control orders under which terrorist suspects are held under a form of house arrest.
Several senior Conservative ministers are also strongly oppposed to keeping the regime, which has been undermined by a series of key rulings in the courts.
The dispute has been further fuelled with an intervention by Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, The Times has learnt.
He has made clear his opposition to the keeping of the orders in a move that is an acute embarrassment to ministers, as the peer was appointed by the Government specifically to oversee the review of counter-terrorism laws.
The review is being conducted by the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism (OSCT), which is part of the Home Office.
Lord Macdonald is understood to have written to Theresa May, the Home Secretary, telling her that he could not support the retention of control orders.
He would have to make his views clear when he reports on the internal review. The reports will be published at the same time — now expected in mid December rather than a couple of months earlier as originally promised.
“Ken (Lord Macdonald) would go ballistic if the Government decides to keep control orders,” a source said.
The Prime Minister has yet to make a final decision and a fierce battle is waging among senior ministers over the control order regime, a key aspect of the counter-terrorism review.
Ms May, who set up the review, is understood to have been convinced by the security services of the need to retain control orders as a key weapon in the Government’s armoury against terrorism.
This week she is due to deliver her first big speech on counter-terrorism since becoming Home Secretary in May.
But other senior Conservative law and order ministers are against control orders in principle, including Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, and Dominic Grieve, the Attorney-General.
With the Liberal Democrats having pledged to scrap control orders in their election manifesto, the issue threatens to produce the next major split in the Coalition.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: “This is heading to be a coalition car crash. If the public campaigning of the security establishment is anything to go by, imagine what the private lobbying must be like.
“You cannot claim to champion civil liberties whilst reneging on years of opposition to control orders and converting to a belief in indefinite punishment without trial.”
Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, has taken a keen interest in the issue, with one Whitehall source saying that his interventions are causing “huge tensions”.
Six briefing papers have been drawn up by the Home Office review under Charles Farr, the leading counter-terrorism expert in the Home Office.
They cover control orders, pre-trial detention, deportation to countries where assurances about treatment have been given; local authority surveillance powers; stop and search powers and photography in public places.
The lobbying from the security services and the OSCT has made clear to ministers that they regard retaining control orders as a “red line” in the review of terrorism laws.
They also argue that the cost of any alternative such as 24-hour surveillance would be massive in terms of police manpower and finances at a time of budgetary restraint.
There is agreement, however, among ministers that the 28-day limit for holding terror suspects before charge can be reduced to 14 days, with the safeguard that some suspects could be bailed for longer, under conditions such as a ban on travel overseas, and with judicial approval.
Counter-terrorism powers that allow police to stop and search people in designated areas without suspicion are also likely to be abolished.
Figures published this week show that more than 100,000 people were stopped in 2009-10 under the so-called section 44 powers, but no one was arrested for a terrorist offence.
A Home Office spokesman said: “The counter-terrorism review is under way and we will report back shortly. No decisions have yet been made.”
The review was initially expected to report at the end of September, then next week, according to one source.
Ed Balls, the new shadow Home Secretary, is currently meeting security advisers and senior police officers but has not declared the party’s position.
A Labour party spokesperson said: “We would like to achieve a consensus on this critical issue [control orders] if possible.”
Last week Tony McNulty, the former Labour policing minister, admitted that the party had “misjudged control orders, stop and search and other civil rights issues” while in Government. He described control orders as a “clumsy tool”.
Senior Liberal Democrats have written to Mr Cameron arguing that control orders should be scrapped and that any marginal advantage gained from their use was cancelled out by the negative impact on the Muslim community.
Tom Brake, co-chairman of the Liberal Democrats home affairs parliamentary party committee, said: “It is very much a crucial issue for the coalition and in particular the Liberal Democrats. We have consistently opposed control orders.”
Tools to thwart terrorism
• Control orders are used to deal with terror suspects who cannot be deported or tried
• Nine are currently in use
• They were introduced under 2005 anti-terror laws after law lords’ ruling that terror suspects must not be detained without trial
• They put suspects under strict supervision
• Conditions include curfews, bans on whom suspect can meet; tagging; no internet; no passport; daily reporting to police; public transport ban
• Series of court rulings have reduced their scope: in 2009 the law lords ruled that control order suspects had been denied fair trial because they did not know gist of the case against them
• Critics say they amount to house arrest and punishment without trial
• Security services say they are an essential tool
• Police say they might be needed for terrorists released from jail
• Internal Home Office review set up in July by the Government in line with Conservative pledge; Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, former Director of Public Prosecutions, appointed independent reviewer of the Home Office inquiry
Source: Times (£)
Friday, October 29, 2010
Is the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) a threat to democracy?
Is the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) a threat to democracy?
The Voice of the Police Service
"The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)
is an independent, professionally led strategic body. In the public interest and, in equal and active partnership with Government and the Association of Police Authorities, ACPO leads and coordinates the direction and development of the police service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In times of national need ACPO - on behalf of all chief officers - coordinates the strategic policing response.
Chief officers of all police forces strive to deliver effective policing at local, regional and national levels. ACPO is a voluntary association of chief officers bringing together their experience and expertise to help achieve those aims on behalf of the public. ACPO is wholly accountable to chief officers who in turn, are each accountable to the people they serve and to police authorities at a force level".
I am concerned that a private company, which ACPO is, is claiming to be the voice of the police service. Furthermore, that this private company is passing itself off as "an independent, professionally led strategic body". And that ACPO claims that its private business activities are "In the public interest". I am aware that we have a coalition government, however, who voted for ACPO to be "in equal and active partnership with Government"? This private company that none of us voted into power informs us that, "ACPO leads and coordinates the direction and development of the police service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland". A public service led by a private company? No wonder civil liberities are abused supposedly in the public interest. ACPO acts on behalf of its members, and is accountable to itself whilst making the false claim that it is accountable to the public. This absolute power exercised by this private company, is, we are assured, exercised in the public interest. Just like it was here, perhaps?
I feel a legal challenge coming on maybe even Association of Prisoners (AoP) v Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)...
The Voice of the Police Service"The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)
is an independent, professionally led strategic body. In the public interest and, in equal and active partnership with Government and the Association of Police Authorities, ACPO leads and coordinates the direction and development of the police service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In times of national need ACPO - on behalf of all chief officers - coordinates the strategic policing response.
Chief officers of all police forces strive to deliver effective policing at local, regional and national levels. ACPO is a voluntary association of chief officers bringing together their experience and expertise to help achieve those aims on behalf of the public. ACPO is wholly accountable to chief officers who in turn, are each accountable to the people they serve and to police authorities at a force level".
I am concerned that a private company, which ACPO is, is claiming to be the voice of the police service. Furthermore, that this private company is passing itself off as "an independent, professionally led strategic body". And that ACPO claims that its private business activities are "In the public interest". I am aware that we have a coalition government, however, who voted for ACPO to be "in equal and active partnership with Government"? This private company that none of us voted into power informs us that, "ACPO leads and coordinates the direction and development of the police service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland". A public service led by a private company? No wonder civil liberities are abused supposedly in the public interest. ACPO acts on behalf of its members, and is accountable to itself whilst making the false claim that it is accountable to the public. This absolute power exercised by this private company, is, we are assured, exercised in the public interest. Just like it was here, perhaps?
I feel a legal challenge coming on maybe even Association of Prisoners (AoP) v Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)...
Eat McDonalds and get McFat then issue a McWrit
Eat McDonalds and get McFat then issue a McWrit
McDonald's manager in Brazil wins £11,000 for weight gain
A Brazilian court has ordered McDonald's to pay a former franchise manager $17,500 (£11,000) because he gained 65 pounds while working there for 12 years.
The 32-year-old man says he was forced to sample food products each day to ensure that quality standards remained high because McDonald's hired "mystery clients" to randomly visit restaurants and report on the food, service and cleanliness.
The man also says McDonald's offered free lunches to employees, adding to his calorie intake while on the job. His identity was not released.
The ruling against McDonald's was signed on Tuesday by judge Joao Filho in Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Mr Filho said McDonald's could appeal the case, and the Brazilian headquarters of the chain said in an emailed statement on Thursday it was weighing its legal options.
McDonald's also noted that it offers healthier food choices.
"The chain offers a large variety of options and balanced menus to cater (to) the daily dietary needs of its employees," the company said in the statement.
Comment: Surely this is a McJoke?
McDonald's manager in Brazil wins £11,000 for weight gain
A Brazilian court has ordered McDonald's to pay a former franchise manager $17,500 (£11,000) because he gained 65 pounds while working there for 12 years.
The 32-year-old man says he was forced to sample food products each day to ensure that quality standards remained high because McDonald's hired "mystery clients" to randomly visit restaurants and report on the food, service and cleanliness.
The man also says McDonald's offered free lunches to employees, adding to his calorie intake while on the job. His identity was not released.
The ruling against McDonald's was signed on Tuesday by judge Joao Filho in Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Mr Filho said McDonald's could appeal the case, and the Brazilian headquarters of the chain said in an emailed statement on Thursday it was weighing its legal options.
McDonald's also noted that it offers healthier food choices.
"The chain offers a large variety of options and balanced menus to cater (to) the daily dietary needs of its employees," the company said in the statement.
Comment: Surely this is a McJoke?
Baby killed after interrupting his mother's Facebook time
Baby killed after interrupting his mother's Facebook time
A north Florida mother has pleaded guilty to shaking her baby to death after the boy's crying interrupted her game on Facebook.
Daily Telegraph Published: 11:27PM BST 28 Oct 2010
Alexandra V. Tobias pleaded guilty to second-degree murder on Wednesday and remains jailed.
The Florida Times-Union reports that she told investigators she was angered because the boy was crying while she was playing the game Farmville.
The paper also reports that she told investigators she shook the boy, smoked a cigarette to compose herself and then shook him again.
She will be sentenced in December. State guidelines call for 25 to 50 years, but a prosecutor said it could be shorter than that.
A telephone message and an email sent by The Associated Press to her attorney were not immediately returned.
A north Florida mother has pleaded guilty to shaking her baby to death after the boy's crying interrupted her game on Facebook.
Daily Telegraph Published: 11:27PM BST 28 Oct 2010
Alexandra V. Tobias pleaded guilty to second-degree murder on Wednesday and remains jailed.
The Florida Times-Union reports that she told investigators she was angered because the boy was crying while she was playing the game Farmville.
The paper also reports that she told investigators she shook the boy, smoked a cigarette to compose herself and then shook him again.
She will be sentenced in December. State guidelines call for 25 to 50 years, but a prosecutor said it could be shorter than that.
A telephone message and an email sent by The Associated Press to her attorney were not immediately returned.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
The wisdom of Norman Tebbit
The wisdom of Norman Tebbit
Questions for Written Answer
Tabled on 26 October and due for answer by 9 November.
Lord Tebbit: to ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the voting rights of prisoners in Hirst v United Kingdom is legally binding in the United Kingdom? HL3224
Questions for Written Answer
Tabled on 26 October and due for answer by 9 November.
Lord Tebbit: to ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the voting rights of prisoners in Hirst v United Kingdom is legally binding in the United Kingdom? HL3224
Maverick Meerkats calendar 2011
Maverick Meerkats calendar 2011
From the people behind the best-selling calendars Guinea Pig Games, Guinea Pig Olympics and Ferrets Go Fishing comes the latest cute animal wall calendar: Maverick Meerkats 2011. The calendar follows a pair of meerkats as they take part in some really extreme sports. Whether skydiving, skateboarding or jet skiing, these little animals are not afraid of a little danger and each month brings a new rad activity for them to try. The calendar is perfect for extreme sports and meerkat lovers alike, and will bring a smile every month. Maverick Meerkats 2011 costs from £9.99 and can be ordered online at www.shopwithmaverick.com
January 2011: the meerkats go skateboarding Picture: www.shopwithmaverick.com
February 2011: The daredevil meerkats go tandem sky-diving. Picture: www.shopwithmaverick.com
November 2011: Winter is here and the local canal has frozen over. Perfect for a bit of ice-skating
Picture: www.shopwithmaverick.com
December 2011: The meerkats take to the slopes for a skiing holiday. Picture: www.shopwithmaverick.com
Source: See the other photos here.
From the people behind the best-selling calendars Guinea Pig Games, Guinea Pig Olympics and Ferrets Go Fishing comes the latest cute animal wall calendar: Maverick Meerkats 2011. The calendar follows a pair of meerkats as they take part in some really extreme sports. Whether skydiving, skateboarding or jet skiing, these little animals are not afraid of a little danger and each month brings a new rad activity for them to try. The calendar is perfect for extreme sports and meerkat lovers alike, and will bring a smile every month. Maverick Meerkats 2011 costs from £9.99 and can be ordered online at www.shopwithmaverick.com January 2011: the meerkats go skateboarding Picture: www.shopwithmaverick.com
February 2011: The daredevil meerkats go tandem sky-diving. Picture: www.shopwithmaverick.comNovember 2011: Winter is here and the local canal has frozen over. Perfect for a bit of ice-skatingPicture: www.shopwithmaverick.com
December 2011: The meerkats take to the slopes for a skiing holiday. Picture: www.shopwithmaverick.comSource: See the other photos here.
Baby elephant attacked by crocodile
Baby elephant attacked by crocodile
A baby elephant was saved by its herd after being caught by the trunk by a crocodile.
The moment a crocodile pounces on the young elephant, hoping for a kill by locking its jaws around its trunk Photo: Johan Opperman/Solent News
After the attack the herd stayed with the youngster Photo: Johan Opperman/Solent News
Comment: It is nice to report a happy ending.
A baby elephant was saved by its herd after being caught by the trunk by a crocodile.
The moment a crocodile pounces on the young elephant, hoping for a kill by locking its jaws around its trunk Photo: Johan Opperman/Solent News After the attack the herd stayed with the youngster Photo: Johan Opperman/Solent NewsComment: It is nice to report a happy ending.
Crime pays for expenses fiddling MPs given £40k bonuses!
Crime pays for expenses fiddling MPs given £40k bonuses!
Golden parachute deals net MPs £10.3m
MPs who resigned or lost their seats at the general election received more than £10.3 million in controversial "golden parachute" payments, according to official figures obtained by The Daily Telegraph.
I don't know of any other job where employees caught stealing and sacked get paid a bonus...
Golden parachute deals net MPs £10.3m
MPs who resigned or lost their seats at the general election received more than £10.3 million in controversial "golden parachute" payments, according to official figures obtained by The Daily Telegraph.
I don't know of any other job where employees caught stealing and sacked get paid a bonus...
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Bullingdon Club Boris seeks London drinks ban
Bullingdon Club Boris seeks London drinks ban
It is neither illegal to buy or drink alcohol in this country, therefore it is not a crime or anti-social behaviour if a breathalyser reading shows that a person has been drinking.
What concerns me about Boris Johnson's attempt to erode our civil liberties, is that he claims to have racked his brains to come up with this crazy scheme. There are certain offences whereby a citizen can be prosecuted for example, drunk and disorderly conduct or driving under the influence of drink. When these occur the citizen is subject to due process of law, and a sanction is imposed for the offence or offences committed. It is unlawful to punish again and again and again for the one offence. What Boris is attempting to do is make it a crime to simply have a drink, strict liability, and the person who has had the drink does not need to have shown that they have been drunk and disorderly, or driving under the influence of drink. To add insult to injury, he is expecting citizens to pay for the drink police to test whether the citizen has had a drink.
Might I strongly suggest that Boris goes back to the drawing board on this one?
It is neither illegal to buy or drink alcohol in this country, therefore it is not a crime or anti-social behaviour if a breathalyser reading shows that a person has been drinking.
What concerns me about Boris Johnson's attempt to erode our civil liberties, is that he claims to have racked his brains to come up with this crazy scheme. There are certain offences whereby a citizen can be prosecuted for example, drunk and disorderly conduct or driving under the influence of drink. When these occur the citizen is subject to due process of law, and a sanction is imposed for the offence or offences committed. It is unlawful to punish again and again and again for the one offence. What Boris is attempting to do is make it a crime to simply have a drink, strict liability, and the person who has had the drink does not need to have shown that they have been drunk and disorderly, or driving under the influence of drink. To add insult to injury, he is expecting citizens to pay for the drink police to test whether the citizen has had a drink.
Might I strongly suggest that Boris goes back to the drawing board on this one?
'Degrading' sanitation system forces prisoners to slop out cells
'Degrading' sanitation system forces prisoners to slop out cells
By Robert Verkaik, Home Affairs Editor, Independent
Prisoners are being forced to slop out in their cells because of a "degrading system" of sanitation, say inspectors.
Slopping out, where prisoners use buckets in which to relieve themselves while locked in their cells, and empty them later, was supposed to have ended in 1996 but the practice persists at some prisons in England and Wales.
Conditions at Coldingley Prison in Surrey were so primitive that inmates had little alternative but to defecate into plastic bags and empty bowls of urine out of cell windows. Nigel Newcomen, Deputy Chief Inspector of Prisons, who visited Coldingley in June, said: "The night sanitation system in the older accommodation remained wholly unacceptable."
Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, commented: "When an otherwise decent prison is taken to task for degrading sanitation arrangements, leading to a gross form of 'slopping out', you wonder what century we are in. In a modern prison system this practice is demeaning and unacceptable." Coldingley was opened in 1969 as a Category B prison but is now Category C and focuses on the resettlement of prisoners.
In the summer, the Independent Monitoring Boards criticised 10 other prisons for their inadequate lavatory facilities. One was Albany, on the site of a former military barracks on the Isle of Wight.
At Coldingley, inspectors found that on wings A to D there was no in-cell sanitation or drinking water. Instead, access to lavatories was by an automated system. Only one prisoner at a time from each landing could go to the lavatory at night, and inmates were allowed to leave their cells for a total of three eight-minute periods.
To use the system, prisoners pressed a button that put them in a computerised queue, which could hold a maximum of eight prisoners. Cell doors were unlocked for 30 seconds, and if a prisoner missed this window he went to the back of the queue. If a prisoner did not return to his cell within eight minutes, he was prohibited from using the toilet again that night.
There were also concerns about "slopping out" in prison escort vans. A few prisoners said that on long journeys they had been given gel bags to use instead of being offered lavatory breaks.
By Robert Verkaik, Home Affairs Editor, Independent
Prisoners are being forced to slop out in their cells because of a "degrading system" of sanitation, say inspectors.
Slopping out, where prisoners use buckets in which to relieve themselves while locked in their cells, and empty them later, was supposed to have ended in 1996 but the practice persists at some prisons in England and Wales.
Conditions at Coldingley Prison in Surrey were so primitive that inmates had little alternative but to defecate into plastic bags and empty bowls of urine out of cell windows. Nigel Newcomen, Deputy Chief Inspector of Prisons, who visited Coldingley in June, said: "The night sanitation system in the older accommodation remained wholly unacceptable."
Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, commented: "When an otherwise decent prison is taken to task for degrading sanitation arrangements, leading to a gross form of 'slopping out', you wonder what century we are in. In a modern prison system this practice is demeaning and unacceptable." Coldingley was opened in 1969 as a Category B prison but is now Category C and focuses on the resettlement of prisoners.
In the summer, the Independent Monitoring Boards criticised 10 other prisons for their inadequate lavatory facilities. One was Albany, on the site of a former military barracks on the Isle of Wight.
At Coldingley, inspectors found that on wings A to D there was no in-cell sanitation or drinking water. Instead, access to lavatories was by an automated system. Only one prisoner at a time from each landing could go to the lavatory at night, and inmates were allowed to leave their cells for a total of three eight-minute periods.
To use the system, prisoners pressed a button that put them in a computerised queue, which could hold a maximum of eight prisoners. Cell doors were unlocked for 30 seconds, and if a prisoner missed this window he went to the back of the queue. If a prisoner did not return to his cell within eight minutes, he was prohibited from using the toilet again that night.
There were also concerns about "slopping out" in prison escort vans. A few prisoners said that on long journeys they had been given gel bags to use instead of being offered lavatory breaks.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Youth jails under fire for not implementing reforms after deaths
Youth jails under fire for not implementing reforms after deaths
Youth jails yet to introduce new restraint system six years after deaths
Interim manual for staff at privately run institutions allows two 'distraction' methods involving use of pain
By Alan Travis Home Affairs editor Guardian
A new system of restraining troublesome children in privately run youth jails has still not come into effect six years after the deaths of two teenagers, the Ministry of Justice confirmed tonight.
The admission comes after the publication of an interim manual that still allowed staff to use two "distraction" techniques which rely on the use of pain. Two other restraint techniques involving the application of pain have already been banned.
The recommendation for a new system of managing behaviour, which emphasises the need for private security staff to use proper "de-escalation" techniques and avoid the use of restraint, arose from the inquests into the deaths of Gareth Myatt, aged 15, and Adam Rickwood, aged 14, in secure training centres in 2004.
An MoJ progress report published today on the implementation of the coroner's recommendations discloses that the new system of restraint is still undergoing "medical accreditation" and will not be introduced before 2011.
It comes as new Youth Justice Board figures show that 21 children sustained injuries while being restrained between June last year and this May at Hassockfield secure training centre near Consett, Co Durham, where Adam Rickwood died.
The YJB figures show that restraint was used 543 times on children at Hassockfield between April 2008 and March 2009. The unit holds 58 teenagers described as some of the most damaged and difficult young people in the country.
The new behaviour management system for use in the secure training centres, which hold 300 teenage offenders aged 12 to 17, is known as conflict resolution training. It is designed to put an emphasis on de-escalating conflict and training for staff on managing difficult behaviour without the need to resort to restraint. A set of techniques known as therapeutic crisis intervention has also been piloted at Hassockfield.
Katy Swaine of the Children's Rights Alliance for England said she hoped the new system will lead to a significant improvement in the government's record for caring for vulnerable children in custody.
"However, it is long overdue and we remain deeply disappointed by the government's refusal to abandon state-sanctioned deliberately painful restraint techniques on children, which are not permitted in other childcare settings," said Swaine.
She said that it was also unacceptable that ministers continued to resist calls for a public inquiry into the use of unlawful restraint practices in child prisons between 2004 and 2008 despite an appeal court ruling more than two years ago.
The two restraint techniques that rely on the application of pain authorised in the 2010 MoJ manual are the rib distraction and the thumb distraction. They are supposed only be used in potentially volatile or violent situations where the safety of young people, staff or others is at risk.
A separate personal protection manual also authorises the use of violent "breakaway" techniques when staff are being attacked. The manual says that the full techniques should not be practised in training for fear of injuring staff.
The Ministry of Justice said restraint was only ever used as a last resort when young people's behaviour put themselves or others at serious risk, usually involving life-threatening situations.
"The independent review of restraint concluded that pain-compliant techniques were necessary, in exceptional circumstances ... to manage incidents that put young people or staff at serious risk." It added that techniques were never used as a punishment.
Youth jails yet to introduce new restraint system six years after deaths
Interim manual for staff at privately run institutions allows two 'distraction' methods involving use of pain
By Alan Travis Home Affairs editor Guardian
A new system of restraining troublesome children in privately run youth jails has still not come into effect six years after the deaths of two teenagers, the Ministry of Justice confirmed tonight.
The admission comes after the publication of an interim manual that still allowed staff to use two "distraction" techniques which rely on the use of pain. Two other restraint techniques involving the application of pain have already been banned.
The recommendation for a new system of managing behaviour, which emphasises the need for private security staff to use proper "de-escalation" techniques and avoid the use of restraint, arose from the inquests into the deaths of Gareth Myatt, aged 15, and Adam Rickwood, aged 14, in secure training centres in 2004.
An MoJ progress report published today on the implementation of the coroner's recommendations discloses that the new system of restraint is still undergoing "medical accreditation" and will not be introduced before 2011.
It comes as new Youth Justice Board figures show that 21 children sustained injuries while being restrained between June last year and this May at Hassockfield secure training centre near Consett, Co Durham, where Adam Rickwood died.
The YJB figures show that restraint was used 543 times on children at Hassockfield between April 2008 and March 2009. The unit holds 58 teenagers described as some of the most damaged and difficult young people in the country.
The new behaviour management system for use in the secure training centres, which hold 300 teenage offenders aged 12 to 17, is known as conflict resolution training. It is designed to put an emphasis on de-escalating conflict and training for staff on managing difficult behaviour without the need to resort to restraint. A set of techniques known as therapeutic crisis intervention has also been piloted at Hassockfield.
Katy Swaine of the Children's Rights Alliance for England said she hoped the new system will lead to a significant improvement in the government's record for caring for vulnerable children in custody.
"However, it is long overdue and we remain deeply disappointed by the government's refusal to abandon state-sanctioned deliberately painful restraint techniques on children, which are not permitted in other childcare settings," said Swaine.
She said that it was also unacceptable that ministers continued to resist calls for a public inquiry into the use of unlawful restraint practices in child prisons between 2004 and 2008 despite an appeal court ruling more than two years ago.
The two restraint techniques that rely on the application of pain authorised in the 2010 MoJ manual are the rib distraction and the thumb distraction. They are supposed only be used in potentially volatile or violent situations where the safety of young people, staff or others is at risk.
A separate personal protection manual also authorises the use of violent "breakaway" techniques when staff are being attacked. The manual says that the full techniques should not be practised in training for fear of injuring staff.
The Ministry of Justice said restraint was only ever used as a last resort when young people's behaviour put themselves or others at serious risk, usually involving life-threatening situations.
"The independent review of restraint concluded that pain-compliant techniques were necessary, in exceptional circumstances ... to manage incidents that put young people or staff at serious risk." It added that techniques were never used as a punishment.
Child detention in immigration centres faces legal challenge
Child detention in immigration centres faces legal challenge
Home Office to fight high court case of two mothers whose children became ill after being detained in Yarl's Wood
By Alan Travis Home Affairs editor Guardian
A high court challenge to bring to an immediate end the detention of children in immigration removal centres was launched today.
The case is being brought on behalf of two single mothers and their children who were detained by UK Border Agency (UKBA) officers in dawn raids on their homes earlier this year.
Lawyers acting for Reetha Suppiah and Sakinat Bello say they have evidence that even short periods in detention are unlawful as they cause serious harm to children.
The case, which is expected to last three days, is being brought by Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), with the human rights group Liberty and the campaign group Bail for Immigration Detainees also intervening.
The Home Office said it was fighting the case as it remained committed to the removal of those found by the courts to have no right to remain in the UK.
"The ability to enforce removals when necessary is a key part of a sustainable immigration system," a Home Office spokesman said.
He added that the detention of families would be kept to a minimum while officials drew up an alternative arrangement that would protect the welfare of children without undermining immigration law. The immigration minister, Damian Green, recently assured refugee welfare groups that this work would be completed by the end of the year.
But both PIL and Liberty have accused the coalition government of stalling on its pledge immediately after the election in May that it would end the detention of children for immigration purposes.
Jill Duffy of PIL said that five months after the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, called it a moral outrage, children continued to be held in prison-like conditions.
Suppiah and her two sons, aged one and 11, were taken to Yarl's Wood detention centre in Bedfordshire in February and detained for 17 days. Bello was detained at Yarl's Wood for 12 days before being released back into the community. Upon arrival all the children became sick, suffering from diarrhoea and vomiting.
"It appears that the welfare needs of the families were not properly taken into account or even assessed prior to the decision to detain, and the detention experience has had a profound effect upon them," PIL said.
The latest published UKBA figures show that 110 children were detained between April and June this year. Five children were being held in removal centres on 30 June. But more than 1,085 children were detained during the course of 2009. One child was held for 158 days but the average period was two weeks.
Liberty's legal officer, Emma Norton, said: "This has gone on too long and we look to the courts to put an end to it this week. Prison is no place for a child and defending such an unsavoury position is no place for the new government."
Home Office to fight high court case of two mothers whose children became ill after being detained in Yarl's Wood
By Alan Travis Home Affairs editor Guardian
A high court challenge to bring to an immediate end the detention of children in immigration removal centres was launched today.
The case is being brought on behalf of two single mothers and their children who were detained by UK Border Agency (UKBA) officers in dawn raids on their homes earlier this year.
Lawyers acting for Reetha Suppiah and Sakinat Bello say they have evidence that even short periods in detention are unlawful as they cause serious harm to children.
The case, which is expected to last three days, is being brought by Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), with the human rights group Liberty and the campaign group Bail for Immigration Detainees also intervening.
The Home Office said it was fighting the case as it remained committed to the removal of those found by the courts to have no right to remain in the UK.
"The ability to enforce removals when necessary is a key part of a sustainable immigration system," a Home Office spokesman said.
He added that the detention of families would be kept to a minimum while officials drew up an alternative arrangement that would protect the welfare of children without undermining immigration law. The immigration minister, Damian Green, recently assured refugee welfare groups that this work would be completed by the end of the year.
But both PIL and Liberty have accused the coalition government of stalling on its pledge immediately after the election in May that it would end the detention of children for immigration purposes.
Jill Duffy of PIL said that five months after the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, called it a moral outrage, children continued to be held in prison-like conditions.
Suppiah and her two sons, aged one and 11, were taken to Yarl's Wood detention centre in Bedfordshire in February and detained for 17 days. Bello was detained at Yarl's Wood for 12 days before being released back into the community. Upon arrival all the children became sick, suffering from diarrhoea and vomiting.
"It appears that the welfare needs of the families were not properly taken into account or even assessed prior to the decision to detain, and the detention experience has had a profound effect upon them," PIL said.
The latest published UKBA figures show that 110 children were detained between April and June this year. Five children were being held in removal centres on 30 June. But more than 1,085 children were detained during the course of 2009. One child was held for 158 days but the average period was two weeks.
Liberty's legal officer, Emma Norton, said: "This has gone on too long and we look to the courts to put an end to it this week. Prison is no place for a child and defending such an unsavoury position is no place for the new government."
Nick Herbert: Speech on Government plans for prison reform
Nick Herbert: Speech on Government plans for prison reform
Policing and Criminal Justice Minister, Nick Herbert, delivered the annual Parmoor Lecture for the Howard League for Penal Reform
Thank you for inviting me to speak this evening. It is a pleasure to address members and supporters of the Howard League for Penal Reform, and an honour to deliver the Parmoor Lecture.
I would like to begin by paying tribute to the Howard League and the vital work you do to improve our penal system. For nearly a century and half you have been tireless campaigners for a great progressive cause. May you long continue to follow in John Howard’s footsteps and fearlessly speak truth to power.
Lord Parmoor came from a distinguished family. His uncle was Stafford Cripps, Chancellor in Clement Atlee’s government. In 1948 crisis had hit the economy and Cripps introduced an austerity budget, including a wage freeze. He told the TUC congress: ‘There is only a certain sized cake. If a lot of people want a larger slice they can only get it by taking it from others.’
So history repeats itself and lessons are re-learned. We meet here in the week of the Spending Review. The Ministry of Justice has to play its part in reducing the deficit. Its spending will be reduced by nearly a quarter over four years. By 2014/15, the Ministry of Justice will be spending around £2 billion less than it is today. Tough decisions have to be made.
Our focus is on spending money wisely. We will save £1 billion from administration and frontline efficiency, including a one third reduction in administration – our largest single saving. We are consulting on the closure of 157 under-utilised courts. And we will consult on how to reform legal aid, targeting funding on those who need it most, for those cases that require it.
Even after reform, we will still have one of the most generous legal aid systems in the world. Indeed, we have one of the most expensive criminal justice systems in the world. The combined budgets of the police, courts and prison have increased dramatically over the past decade – by £8 billion, from £11 billion to £19 billion today, an increase of over a third in real terms.
Within that, spending on offender management has risen faster still – by over two thirds under the last government. In the last fifteen years, the prison population has grown by 34,000. That increase was not properly planned. It has placed huge strain on the penal system, resulting in three quarters of prisons today being overcrowded. There are strong reasons, to which I will return, for believing that a continuing rise in the prison population is simply unsustainable.
But Ken Clarke made clear, in his first speech as Justice Secretary, that ‘we are not going to approach sentencing matters … on the basis of cutting costs.’ We do not make the argument that the prison population must be reduced simply to save money. The majority of the savings in the Ministry of Justice’s budget announced yesterday come from efficiencies. Some come from reducing the requirement for prison places, which will be 3,000 lower at the end of the spending review period than it is today. That is a reduction of 3.5 per cent.
Dealing with the deficit forces us to ask the tough and searching questions about how well public money is spent and what really works.
Around half of all crime is committed by people who have already offended. The so-called criminal justice ‘system’ has already dealt with them – but unsuccessfully. And nearly half of adult offenders are convicted of another offence within one year of release from prison. The situation has been getting worse, not better. Adult re-offending rose by 8 per cent between 2006 and 2008.
Prisons are not optional in any society: they are essential. They are the means not just to punish offenders, but to protect the public, particularly from the most dangerous criminals. Some offenders, rightly, go to prison for life. Others, rightly, go there for a very long time. The function of prison to incapacitate those who have harmed others, literally to keep them behind bars, will not change.
And as Ken Clarke made clear this week, we have not said that we want to abolish short term prison sentences, and we will not do so. Magistrates must continue to have the power to sentence offenders to a term of custody, including short terms, either for serious first time criminals or where they have run out of road with repeat offenders.
But getting on for two thirds of the 60,000 offenders on short-term sentences are released only to commit another crime within a year. It simply doesn’t make sense to allow this cycle of re-offending to go unbroken.
There are some sensible changes which can be made to improve justice and reduce the use of short term custody. For instance, we are looking at whether those who plead guilty should receive shorter sentences than those who own up later, and we want to reduce the number of foreign national prisoners.
But direct sentencing changes are only part of the answer. To reduce re-offending, we need both fundamental reform of our criminal justice system, and a new focus on preventing crime.
Local partnerships
We know that those who commit crimes at an early age are more likely to do so as adults, and that early intervention is vital to prevent young people slipping into crime. Yet 60 per cent of those given sentences of up to four years didn’t attend school regularly. We also know that 40 per cent of sentenced offenders have mental health issues, and that failing to address these will mean greater problems and higher cost in the future.
So we need to ensure strong local partnerships between agencies to tackle these issues, focusing on individuals at risk of offending or re-offending. This morning I addressed a conference of local criminal justice boards and community safety partnerships to emphasise the value we place in collaboration to prevent crime and reduce re-offending. We want to give these partnerships the space and discretion to do their job, able to organise as they see fit. We want partnerships to be action-oriented, not bureaucratic.
I’ve seen for myself where local partnerships can work really well. Integrated Offender Management approaches such as the ‘Diamond District’ in East London and in the West Midlands are targeting offenders and those at risk of offending. These initiatives were not centrally imposed – they have grown strongly from the ground up. Those most likely to damage local communities are targeted in a co-ordinated way. The police, probation and prisons, health and voluntary organisations work together to tackle those problems that matter most to their community.
The creation of elected Police and Crime Commissioners will drive local action to deliver safer communities and make it more accountable. The police involvement in preventing crime is not a stretching of their role. The founder of modern policing, Sir Robert Peel, said that ‘the basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.’ All of the organisations which make up partnerships will have to deal with constrained resources over the next few years. But using resources wisely should be a spur to joint action to drive down crime, not a reason to move apart.
And just as we want local organisations to work effectively together, government departments must do the same. That is one reason why I am a Minister in both the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. But there are other departments, too, that will contribute to our reform agenda, not least the Department of Health which will play a key role in developing mental health provision.
Community sentences
For those who do offend, fines represent the vast majority of disposals. So these must be enforced and paid. And around 200,000 offenders receive community sentences every year. These sentences must be strengthened . They must be robust and rigorous. They should be punitive. But they should also be effective in getting offenders off drugs or alcohol dependency and into the world of work. If community sentences are weak or unenforced, public confidence in them is undermined. If they fail, serial offenders move inexorably into the custodial system.
There is great potential for restorative justice to improve the experience of victims. Offenders should pay back to the community and see the impact they are having on local people. And we should give communities a choice in the work undertaken by offenders as part of their making good to those whose lives they have affected.
Offending should always have consequences. Community sentences cannot be a soft option. They cannot be held in contempt by criminals or the public. Yet nearly half of those sentenced to a community or suspended sentence order will never complete it. This isn’t a matter of better public relations to improve how community sentences are promoted. We need to improve the disposals themselves.
That is why I want the same rigour and radicalism which we envisage for post-custody supervision to be piloted for community disposals, including using the skills and innovation of the commercial and voluntary sector providers, paid by results so that we get results.
A few weeks ago in New York I went to a tough neighbourhood in Queens to see an innovative project which is offering courts an alternative to detention for young offenders.
Run by the Center for Court Innovation from a church hall, an impressive team of professionals supervise and guide the juveniles, with rigorous after school courses (including sport) and checks to enforce their curfew.
To date 84 per cent of participating youths have complied with court requirements, remain arrest free and have successfully completed the programme.
Now the Center is also developing simultaneous mental health treatment to address the needs of young offenders while they are on the programme.
I do not believe that rigorous sentences like these are soft options. I think they are smart options, giving courts a better choice of disposals. Where young offenders are turned away from committing new crimes, the public has been made safer. I heard no voices in New York calling for this programme to be scrapped.
Prisons with a purpose
Of course, many offenders will still require custodial sentences.
Prisons will always be places of punishment. But they should also be places of hard work, education and lifelong change. And they cannot do that job if they are overcrowded and under pressure. Often offenders are locked in cells for most of their day and do little purposeful activity. I was shocked by my first visit to a local prison three years ago, not least when I saw its failure to deal with offenders with mental problems, but also because so many inmates simply had nothing purposeful to do.
Our vision is that offenders in custody will spend more of their time in productive and meaningful employment and part of their payment for that work will be used to make reparations to victims. These working prisons should instil in offenders the principles of hard work, and the expectations of the working environment. And we need to identify the right kind of work rather than just filling up the sentencing plan. This will prepare offenders for employment post release, which will benefit society as well as offenders.
I am sorry that the Howard League’s social enterprise, Barbed, at HMP Coldingley was forced to wind up. I visited this design workshop and I used their services myself. They did a great job. There are differing accounts of why Barbed could not continue. But these are exactly the sorts of social enterprises in prisons which should be encouraged, not choked.
Work is just a part of the new focus on rehabilitation which we want to drive in the penal system. Better treatment for mental health and drugs problems is essential. And we must integrate rehabilitation programmes so that support continues ‘through the gate’. Two thirds of offenders lose their jobs and a third of women offenders lose their homes while in custody. There is no longer any statutory supervision or support for adult offenders released from short-term sentences – a failure which almost certainly accounts for rising and high rates of re-offending. If offenders leave prison without a job, home or work to go to, and with untreated addictions or mental illness, the consequences are obvious. Yet we watch it happen.
I recently visited the Minerva project at HMP Hull, fittingly named after the Roman goddess of wisdom. The project, which will be voluntary for offenders, aims to enhance the re-settlement of offenders into society after they finish short sentences. Offenders will be met at the gates by Minerva staff on the day of release and then supported for the next twelve weeks to ensure future employability and integration back into society. They will then participate in meaningful work to refurbish a semi-derelict factory, working towards nationally agreed training standards.
Crucially, all of the core project team are seconded from the prison or probation service. They have been trained in coaching, mentoring and engagement of hard to reach offenders. This core team are supported by experts in accommodation, education, training and employment, health, alcohol and drugs, finance, debt and benefit and other issues.
One former offender spoke to me about his experience of the Minerva project. He told me that for the first time in 25 years he had been given stability in his life. Previously he had simply been in an out of prison. What’s striking is the simplicity of schemes like this, and how effective they are at closing the revolving door to prisons. Yet for far too long we have failed to promote them – a failure which has imposed enormous cost on society.
Payment by results
Minerva shows that successful working between prison and probation staff and local authorities can deliver results. But I also want to make far better use of the vast, untapped enthusiasm and expertise of voluntary and private sectors to help with offender management and rehabilitation.
We are exploring how to pay independent providers by results to deliver reduced reoffending – giving them an incentive funded by the savings this new approach will generate for the criminal justice system.
Paying by outcomes would allow for a wider, more diverse range of providers. It would encourage innovation. It could also provide the opportunity to create tailored systems for different areas rather than a national system. It will allow regimes to focus on how to achieve a positive outcome for each particular offender.
We call this payment by results, but you might call it ‘justice reinvestment’. Whatever the name, it represents a radical new focus on rehabilitating offenders, recognising that it no longer makes sense to incur such costs on the public purse through high rates of re-offending. It allows us to make the ‘reinvestment’ a reality by capturing the savings to the criminal justice system. We are already piloting a scheme – the social impact bond in Peterborough Prison. And I believe it is a world first.
Public safety
We will set out our plans for this rehabilitation revolution, including a sentencing assessment, in a Green Paper later this year. We will value the contribution of expert groups in that consultation before we legislate. But I want to end by repeating this key point.
We cannot rely on more spending to make us safe, or more laws to make us more law-abiding. Piling offenders into a prison system which isn’t working, and which presides over high rates of re-offending, does not make us safer.
I agree with the Howard League’s declared core value, to ‘work for a safe society where fewer people are victims of crime.’
It is through radical reform of policing that we will drive stronger action to prevent crime.
It is by making local agencies accountable and effective on the ground that we will tackle prolific offenders.
It is by radical reform of the penal system that we will drive down re-offending.
Tough but hollow words will not make us safer. Real reform of the criminal justice system will.
This is why I believe that penal reform is not just a great progressive cause, but a great public cause. And I am proud that this Coalition Government, in our determination to drive down crime and make the public safer, has embraced it.
Policing and Criminal Justice Minister, Nick Herbert, delivered the annual Parmoor Lecture for the Howard League for Penal Reform
Thank you for inviting me to speak this evening. It is a pleasure to address members and supporters of the Howard League for Penal Reform, and an honour to deliver the Parmoor Lecture.
I would like to begin by paying tribute to the Howard League and the vital work you do to improve our penal system. For nearly a century and half you have been tireless campaigners for a great progressive cause. May you long continue to follow in John Howard’s footsteps and fearlessly speak truth to power.
Lord Parmoor came from a distinguished family. His uncle was Stafford Cripps, Chancellor in Clement Atlee’s government. In 1948 crisis had hit the economy and Cripps introduced an austerity budget, including a wage freeze. He told the TUC congress: ‘There is only a certain sized cake. If a lot of people want a larger slice they can only get it by taking it from others.’
So history repeats itself and lessons are re-learned. We meet here in the week of the Spending Review. The Ministry of Justice has to play its part in reducing the deficit. Its spending will be reduced by nearly a quarter over four years. By 2014/15, the Ministry of Justice will be spending around £2 billion less than it is today. Tough decisions have to be made.
Our focus is on spending money wisely. We will save £1 billion from administration and frontline efficiency, including a one third reduction in administration – our largest single saving. We are consulting on the closure of 157 under-utilised courts. And we will consult on how to reform legal aid, targeting funding on those who need it most, for those cases that require it.
Even after reform, we will still have one of the most generous legal aid systems in the world. Indeed, we have one of the most expensive criminal justice systems in the world. The combined budgets of the police, courts and prison have increased dramatically over the past decade – by £8 billion, from £11 billion to £19 billion today, an increase of over a third in real terms.
Within that, spending on offender management has risen faster still – by over two thirds under the last government. In the last fifteen years, the prison population has grown by 34,000. That increase was not properly planned. It has placed huge strain on the penal system, resulting in three quarters of prisons today being overcrowded. There are strong reasons, to which I will return, for believing that a continuing rise in the prison population is simply unsustainable.
But Ken Clarke made clear, in his first speech as Justice Secretary, that ‘we are not going to approach sentencing matters … on the basis of cutting costs.’ We do not make the argument that the prison population must be reduced simply to save money. The majority of the savings in the Ministry of Justice’s budget announced yesterday come from efficiencies. Some come from reducing the requirement for prison places, which will be 3,000 lower at the end of the spending review period than it is today. That is a reduction of 3.5 per cent.
Dealing with the deficit forces us to ask the tough and searching questions about how well public money is spent and what really works.
Around half of all crime is committed by people who have already offended. The so-called criminal justice ‘system’ has already dealt with them – but unsuccessfully. And nearly half of adult offenders are convicted of another offence within one year of release from prison. The situation has been getting worse, not better. Adult re-offending rose by 8 per cent between 2006 and 2008.
Prisons are not optional in any society: they are essential. They are the means not just to punish offenders, but to protect the public, particularly from the most dangerous criminals. Some offenders, rightly, go to prison for life. Others, rightly, go there for a very long time. The function of prison to incapacitate those who have harmed others, literally to keep them behind bars, will not change.
And as Ken Clarke made clear this week, we have not said that we want to abolish short term prison sentences, and we will not do so. Magistrates must continue to have the power to sentence offenders to a term of custody, including short terms, either for serious first time criminals or where they have run out of road with repeat offenders.
But getting on for two thirds of the 60,000 offenders on short-term sentences are released only to commit another crime within a year. It simply doesn’t make sense to allow this cycle of re-offending to go unbroken.
There are some sensible changes which can be made to improve justice and reduce the use of short term custody. For instance, we are looking at whether those who plead guilty should receive shorter sentences than those who own up later, and we want to reduce the number of foreign national prisoners.
But direct sentencing changes are only part of the answer. To reduce re-offending, we need both fundamental reform of our criminal justice system, and a new focus on preventing crime.
Local partnerships
We know that those who commit crimes at an early age are more likely to do so as adults, and that early intervention is vital to prevent young people slipping into crime. Yet 60 per cent of those given sentences of up to four years didn’t attend school regularly. We also know that 40 per cent of sentenced offenders have mental health issues, and that failing to address these will mean greater problems and higher cost in the future.
So we need to ensure strong local partnerships between agencies to tackle these issues, focusing on individuals at risk of offending or re-offending. This morning I addressed a conference of local criminal justice boards and community safety partnerships to emphasise the value we place in collaboration to prevent crime and reduce re-offending. We want to give these partnerships the space and discretion to do their job, able to organise as they see fit. We want partnerships to be action-oriented, not bureaucratic.
I’ve seen for myself where local partnerships can work really well. Integrated Offender Management approaches such as the ‘Diamond District’ in East London and in the West Midlands are targeting offenders and those at risk of offending. These initiatives were not centrally imposed – they have grown strongly from the ground up. Those most likely to damage local communities are targeted in a co-ordinated way. The police, probation and prisons, health and voluntary organisations work together to tackle those problems that matter most to their community.
The creation of elected Police and Crime Commissioners will drive local action to deliver safer communities and make it more accountable. The police involvement in preventing crime is not a stretching of their role. The founder of modern policing, Sir Robert Peel, said that ‘the basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.’ All of the organisations which make up partnerships will have to deal with constrained resources over the next few years. But using resources wisely should be a spur to joint action to drive down crime, not a reason to move apart.
And just as we want local organisations to work effectively together, government departments must do the same. That is one reason why I am a Minister in both the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. But there are other departments, too, that will contribute to our reform agenda, not least the Department of Health which will play a key role in developing mental health provision.
Community sentences
For those who do offend, fines represent the vast majority of disposals. So these must be enforced and paid. And around 200,000 offenders receive community sentences every year. These sentences must be strengthened . They must be robust and rigorous. They should be punitive. But they should also be effective in getting offenders off drugs or alcohol dependency and into the world of work. If community sentences are weak or unenforced, public confidence in them is undermined. If they fail, serial offenders move inexorably into the custodial system.
There is great potential for restorative justice to improve the experience of victims. Offenders should pay back to the community and see the impact they are having on local people. And we should give communities a choice in the work undertaken by offenders as part of their making good to those whose lives they have affected.
Offending should always have consequences. Community sentences cannot be a soft option. They cannot be held in contempt by criminals or the public. Yet nearly half of those sentenced to a community or suspended sentence order will never complete it. This isn’t a matter of better public relations to improve how community sentences are promoted. We need to improve the disposals themselves.
That is why I want the same rigour and radicalism which we envisage for post-custody supervision to be piloted for community disposals, including using the skills and innovation of the commercial and voluntary sector providers, paid by results so that we get results.
A few weeks ago in New York I went to a tough neighbourhood in Queens to see an innovative project which is offering courts an alternative to detention for young offenders.
Run by the Center for Court Innovation from a church hall, an impressive team of professionals supervise and guide the juveniles, with rigorous after school courses (including sport) and checks to enforce their curfew.
To date 84 per cent of participating youths have complied with court requirements, remain arrest free and have successfully completed the programme.
Now the Center is also developing simultaneous mental health treatment to address the needs of young offenders while they are on the programme.
I do not believe that rigorous sentences like these are soft options. I think they are smart options, giving courts a better choice of disposals. Where young offenders are turned away from committing new crimes, the public has been made safer. I heard no voices in New York calling for this programme to be scrapped.
Prisons with a purpose
Of course, many offenders will still require custodial sentences.
Prisons will always be places of punishment. But they should also be places of hard work, education and lifelong change. And they cannot do that job if they are overcrowded and under pressure. Often offenders are locked in cells for most of their day and do little purposeful activity. I was shocked by my first visit to a local prison three years ago, not least when I saw its failure to deal with offenders with mental problems, but also because so many inmates simply had nothing purposeful to do.
Our vision is that offenders in custody will spend more of their time in productive and meaningful employment and part of their payment for that work will be used to make reparations to victims. These working prisons should instil in offenders the principles of hard work, and the expectations of the working environment. And we need to identify the right kind of work rather than just filling up the sentencing plan. This will prepare offenders for employment post release, which will benefit society as well as offenders.
I am sorry that the Howard League’s social enterprise, Barbed, at HMP Coldingley was forced to wind up. I visited this design workshop and I used their services myself. They did a great job. There are differing accounts of why Barbed could not continue. But these are exactly the sorts of social enterprises in prisons which should be encouraged, not choked.
Work is just a part of the new focus on rehabilitation which we want to drive in the penal system. Better treatment for mental health and drugs problems is essential. And we must integrate rehabilitation programmes so that support continues ‘through the gate’. Two thirds of offenders lose their jobs and a third of women offenders lose their homes while in custody. There is no longer any statutory supervision or support for adult offenders released from short-term sentences – a failure which almost certainly accounts for rising and high rates of re-offending. If offenders leave prison without a job, home or work to go to, and with untreated addictions or mental illness, the consequences are obvious. Yet we watch it happen.
I recently visited the Minerva project at HMP Hull, fittingly named after the Roman goddess of wisdom. The project, which will be voluntary for offenders, aims to enhance the re-settlement of offenders into society after they finish short sentences. Offenders will be met at the gates by Minerva staff on the day of release and then supported for the next twelve weeks to ensure future employability and integration back into society. They will then participate in meaningful work to refurbish a semi-derelict factory, working towards nationally agreed training standards.
Crucially, all of the core project team are seconded from the prison or probation service. They have been trained in coaching, mentoring and engagement of hard to reach offenders. This core team are supported by experts in accommodation, education, training and employment, health, alcohol and drugs, finance, debt and benefit and other issues.
One former offender spoke to me about his experience of the Minerva project. He told me that for the first time in 25 years he had been given stability in his life. Previously he had simply been in an out of prison. What’s striking is the simplicity of schemes like this, and how effective they are at closing the revolving door to prisons. Yet for far too long we have failed to promote them – a failure which has imposed enormous cost on society.
Payment by results
Minerva shows that successful working between prison and probation staff and local authorities can deliver results. But I also want to make far better use of the vast, untapped enthusiasm and expertise of voluntary and private sectors to help with offender management and rehabilitation.
We are exploring how to pay independent providers by results to deliver reduced reoffending – giving them an incentive funded by the savings this new approach will generate for the criminal justice system.
Paying by outcomes would allow for a wider, more diverse range of providers. It would encourage innovation. It could also provide the opportunity to create tailored systems for different areas rather than a national system. It will allow regimes to focus on how to achieve a positive outcome for each particular offender.
We call this payment by results, but you might call it ‘justice reinvestment’. Whatever the name, it represents a radical new focus on rehabilitating offenders, recognising that it no longer makes sense to incur such costs on the public purse through high rates of re-offending. It allows us to make the ‘reinvestment’ a reality by capturing the savings to the criminal justice system. We are already piloting a scheme – the social impact bond in Peterborough Prison. And I believe it is a world first.
Public safety
We will set out our plans for this rehabilitation revolution, including a sentencing assessment, in a Green Paper later this year. We will value the contribution of expert groups in that consultation before we legislate. But I want to end by repeating this key point.
We cannot rely on more spending to make us safe, or more laws to make us more law-abiding. Piling offenders into a prison system which isn’t working, and which presides over high rates of re-offending, does not make us safer.
I agree with the Howard League’s declared core value, to ‘work for a safe society where fewer people are victims of crime.’
It is through radical reform of policing that we will drive stronger action to prevent crime.
It is by making local agencies accountable and effective on the ground that we will tackle prolific offenders.
It is by radical reform of the penal system that we will drive down re-offending.
Tough but hollow words will not make us safer. Real reform of the criminal justice system will.
This is why I believe that penal reform is not just a great progressive cause, but a great public cause. And I am proud that this Coalition Government, in our determination to drive down crime and make the public safer, has embraced it.
Jack Straw and the Guardian guilty of human rights abuse
Jack Straw and the Guardian guilty of human rights abuse
It angers me when I read the following headline and sub headline and see that the article has been written by Jack Straw in the Guardian.
Let's bring human rights home
After a decade the act has become embedded in British law – but it's still not part of our national identity
As Foreign Secretary under the Labour administration, Jack Straw authorised the CIA torture flights to take off and land on British soil. As Minister of Justice Jack Straw denied convicted prisoners their human right to the vote. Given that such conduct is illegal under British law, and was carried out by a Minister of State is it any wonder that human rights are still not part of our national identity? Not only should Jack Straw hang his head in shame, but also should Alan Rusbridger the editor of the Guardian for giving such a bad person a public platform.
It angers me when I read the following headline and sub headline and see that the article has been written by Jack Straw in the Guardian.
Let's bring human rights home
After a decade the act has become embedded in British law – but it's still not part of our national identity
As Foreign Secretary under the Labour administration, Jack Straw authorised the CIA torture flights to take off and land on British soil. As Minister of Justice Jack Straw denied convicted prisoners their human right to the vote. Given that such conduct is illegal under British law, and was carried out by a Minister of State is it any wonder that human rights are still not part of our national identity? Not only should Jack Straw hang his head in shame, but also should Alan Rusbridger the editor of the Guardian for giving such a bad person a public platform.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Landscape Photographer of the Year 2010 winning pictures
Landscape Photographer of the Year 2010 winning pictures
This picture gallery features the winning and commended images from the Take a view - Landscape Photographer of the Year Awards 2010. The book, Landscape Photographer of the Year: Collection 4 by AA Publishing, showcases 175 of the best entries and will be published on 31st October and the pictures can be seen at the National Theatre exhibition from 22nd November until 16th January - admission free. Tickets for talks & tours by Awards founder and landscape photographer Charlie Waite are also on sale. The Awards are held in association with Network Rail and Natural England. More information can be found at www.take-a-view.co.uk
Corfe Castle, Dorset by Antony Spencer (Winner, Landscape Photographer of the Year)
Picture: Antony Spencer / Landscape Photographer of the Year
Sand patterns on the Isle of Eigg in Scotland by Dudley Williams (Winner, Classic View)
Picture: Dudley Williams / Landscape Photographer of the Year
Breakfast view, Cardiff by Taliesin Coombes (Winner, Young Landscape Photographer of the Year)
Picture: Taliesin Coombes / Landscape Photographer of the Year
Grindleford Station, Derbyshire by Chris Howe (Network Rail Award Winner)
Picture: Chris Howe / Landscape Photographer of the Year
South Downs near Kingston, East Sussex by Slawek Staszczuk (Natural England Award Winner)
Picture: Slawek Staszczuk / Landscape Photographer of the Year
More photos here.
This picture gallery features the winning and commended images from the Take a view - Landscape Photographer of the Year Awards 2010. The book, Landscape Photographer of the Year: Collection 4 by AA Publishing, showcases 175 of the best entries and will be published on 31st October and the pictures can be seen at the National Theatre exhibition from 22nd November until 16th January - admission free. Tickets for talks & tours by Awards founder and landscape photographer Charlie Waite are also on sale. The Awards are held in association with Network Rail and Natural England. More information can be found at www.take-a-view.co.ukCorfe Castle, Dorset by Antony Spencer (Winner, Landscape Photographer of the Year)
Picture: Antony Spencer / Landscape Photographer of the Year
Sand patterns on the Isle of Eigg in Scotland by Dudley Williams (Winner, Classic View)Picture: Dudley Williams / Landscape Photographer of the Year
Breakfast view, Cardiff by Taliesin Coombes (Winner, Young Landscape Photographer of the Year)Picture: Taliesin Coombes / Landscape Photographer of the Year
Grindleford Station, Derbyshire by Chris Howe (Network Rail Award Winner)Picture: Chris Howe / Landscape Photographer of the Year
South Downs near Kingston, East Sussex by Slawek Staszczuk (Natural England Award Winner)Picture: Slawek Staszczuk / Landscape Photographer of the Year
More photos here.
Torment of prison inmate lawyer Eric K'napp escalates as he is rapidly moved to Chino dormitory
Torment of prison inmate lawyer Eric K'napp escalates as he is rapidly moved to Chino dormitory
K'napp is taken out off single cell status after eight years by Warden Frank X. Chavez and sent hundreds of miles away from his family as punishment
Dr. B. Cayenne Bird
Since my last column exposing the lies told to the media journalists by Warden Frank X. Chavez about the riot that happened on September 15, 2010 at Sierra Conservation Center, numerous developments have taken place.
I can only share the reports sent to me by prison employees, UNION family members and inmates who write to me. These events need to be reported in the mainstream news, but due to the media restrictions and lack of access to specific prisoners, important developments too often go beneath the radar.
There is rarely, if ever, any accountability of rogue wardens and prison employees by our illustrious Attorney General Edmund "Jerry" Brown which is the reason that I voted for Laura Wells, Green Party for Governor instead of for him. With Whitman and Brown, who has taken obscene amounts of money from CCPOA, there is only a choice between worse and worse.
The candidate who is most likely to call out rogue wardens such as Frank X. Chavez is Laura Wells, the Green Party candidate. Brown and Whitman will not fix the humanitarian and fiscal crisis taking place due to mismanaged prisons. It's a big mistake to elect either one of them because they are not smart on crime and have no understanding of the needs of mentally ill prisoners. With all the work that we did during the Prop 19 campaign to register "Decline to State Party" voters, a vote for a third party is not wasted this election. We won't know the new DTS tally until October 29 when the Secretary of State releases the required 15 day report.
We had teams out everywhere in California doing the DTS voter registration and a number of cities were already near 30% according to the April 2010 Secretary of State reports. All that said, I would like to update my readers on what's taking place at Sierra Conservation Center now as more brave people step forward to protest the unlawful abuses of Warden Frank X. Chavez and Dr. Rusty Otto.
Inmate families are now writing to and filing reports with the Tuolumne County Grand Jury insisting on investigations in cases of torture and medical neglect of their loved ones. Since my last article which gave an overview of the horrific abuse of six inmates, Warden Frank X. Chavez and Dr. Rusty Otto decided that inmate lawyer Eric K'napp needed to be removed from the prison and "punished."
K'napp suffers from well-documented Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and has been single-celled for eight years and has a classification which recognizes this condition, along with other medical problems. I appealed to Warden Chavez for about 18 months dozens of times to rectify the prison staff's numerous violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and copied lawmakers, attorneys including Prison Law Office and key journalists. Warden Chavez ignored every single appeal, even those politely asking for the most basic compliance with state and federal laws.
In 2008 a lawsuit had to be filed, Cate vs. K'napp, because civil appeals were not enough to illicit a response that produced results or even attempted to correct problems. Warden Chavez, with the full support of Dr. Rusty Otto, forcibly double-celled a special needs CCCMS patient Eric K'napp in retaliation for filing this lawsuit and because they think he is the only source of information for myself and other journalists. If the laws were being followed by these prison officials, so much energy wouldn't need to be spent on covering up. Warden Chavez claims that K'napp's central file doesn't contain medical diagnoses by many doctors for the past decade that recommend single-celling him, not only for K'napp's own mental health and safety but for anyone put in his cell. This is not the truth. There are numerous communications and evidence that the medical and custody staff at SCC are fully aware of K'napp's medical needs and have long ignored them.
The list of people who have been following this prime example of deliberate indifference know that K'napp was moved to SCC because family ties is important to his treatment. When he was moved there in 2008, his doctor at the previous prison made telephone calls to the SCC medical and custody staff, sent letters, and elaborated on his treatment and medical history to make sure that he would be properly celled. Many officials were advised when this happened. So when Warden Chavez makes the lame and untrue excuse for double-celling and transferring to him to a dorm at Chino that the "C File isn't documented with K'napp's medical history", Chavez is simply making a public spectacle out of himself. If the medical history isn't there now, it's because Warden Chavez and/or Dr. Rusty Otto removed it so that they could manipulate the system and in so doing have compromised the mental and physical health of a prisoner just to cover themselves and to stop the flow of news information.
Warden Chavez decided to punish K'napp for suing him and for passing on information about inmate abuse and riots to me and to other journalists and agencies. So even after eight years of doctor's recommending otherwise, Warden Chavez put a mentally ill inmate with a history of cell fights into K'napp's cell.
A wrong-celling decision is literally a matter of life and death for every prisoner, and especially for those with CCCMS classifications. A prisoner dies almost every day and thousands are maimed for life due to careless double-celling decisions.
That unwise and unethical move predictably triggered symptoms of PTSD and K'napp had to be rushed to a San Quentin crisis bed where he spent two weeks undergoing intense evaluations and treatment because SCC doesn't have one of its own. The very capable mental health team there made an evaluation that confirmed what ten other CDCR physicians have said for the past decade, that Eric K'napp should not be double-celled because doing so triggers flash-backs of traumatic events.
Dr. Paul Burton, head of the San Quentin crisis team minced no words in making his recommendation when K'napp was sent back to Sierra Conservation Center. Yet Warden Chavez and the medical staff completely misconstrued and ignored what the crisis team's evaluation told them and put K'napp exactly back in the cell with the same person whose presence caused the crisis bed to be necessary in the first place.
Talk about cruelty. Talk about unbearable incompetence. But often treatments at outside hospitals are ignored at many prisons in California, which often ends in preventable death or permanent disabilities. Warden Chavez put a different person in the cell with K'napp after considerable outside pressure was applied to return him to single cell status. The latest cellmate is a young man who will be released within two weeks. Again, both prisoners are in danger. Warden Chavez knows this fact and Dr. Rusty Otto knows it but they are more intent on "punishing" and getting K'napp out of the prison than on doing the right thing. Numerous people from the community who have no one in prison called and wrote the warden and Dr. Rusty Otto asking that K'napp be single-celled and treated humanely.
Instead of backing off this power game, Warden Chavez wrongfully told the guards to pack K'napp and his legal materials up, that he will be now be a "Level 2" prisoner who must live in a dormitory in Chino hundreds of miles away from his family which is the opposite of what should be taking place. This stealth move is happening overnight in order to divert focus off K'napp who has done an excellent job at documenting and reporting these abuses for several years, in spite of his own immense suffering. I've seen this type of retaliation many times to inmate lawyers and whistleblowers and there is no intervention at any of the 33 state prisons. In this case, the course of events were very well documented but that has made no difference so far.
The recommendations of the San Quentin Crisis team were totally ignored, and laws were broken, and are still being broken in this and other cases at the prison. Warden Chavez and Dr. Rusty Otto both know that Eric K'napp's work as an inmate lawyer is his life. They also know that he has three important cases on legal deadline and that moving him, shaking his concentration by double-celling him, harassing and forcing him to work in the prison kitchen with an injured back will impede his access to the courts.
Warden Frank X. Chavez blocked K'napp's emergency appeals, his mail to the courts, delayed signature only certified mail that I sent by four weeks and often makes sure that he doesn't get his mail at all. He also claims that K'napps medical history of why he requires single-celling isn't in the file. The goal is denied court access and Frank X. Chavez is a master at achieving that blockage. These common practices at SCC and other prisons cost the taxpayers millions, deny due process to the prisoners and cause overload on the court system. Still, there is no accountability for this kind of dirty play.
Warden Frank X. Chavez should be arrested and the doctor fired for what they've done just because both are named as defendants in a lawsuit that didn't have to be filed if not for their deliberate indifference and violation of ADA, state and federal laws. There are other defendants named in the lawsuit who should also be fired such as Sgt. C. Koenig, Dr. Jack St Clair and Patricia Quinn. They had multiple chances to right the wrongs which they are still refusing to do in all six inmate's cases. Somehow they believe that they are above the laws. Whose fault is that arrogance of people operating on our taxpayer dollars?
An emergency restraining order to stop the forced double-celling which would have prevented K'napp from ending up in the San Quentin crisis bed, was filed with Judge Sheila Oberto on October 1, 2010 and an updated addendum added on October 20, 2010. The courts move so slowly, if and when they move at all, that they are ineffective at best. By the time Judge Oberto gets around to this urgent situation, K'napp will already have been moved to a dorm in Chino which is a very unhealthy place for him and all those surrounding him to be. But in the Warden Chavez' eyes, it makes him powerful to break laws and defy the Coleman/Plata rulings. With so little accountability for this type of unspeakable cruelty and manipulation of a corrupt system running amok, Chavez isn't worried about consequences.
I have a number of sources within SCC and am aware that besides several families filing complaints with the Grand Jury that correctional officers have filed a complaint with Inspector General David Shaw. Riots happen due to gross mismanagement and a number of correctional officers have taken a stand against Warden Chavez. There is almost no intervention by Secretary Matthew Cate or Inspector General David Shaw when inmates and their families complain, but when it comes from the guards, this might prompt some action.
I am filing complaints with the United Nations on behalf of inmates who were carelessly double-celled at this prison which resulted in two rapes, and for three elderly inmates who are very ill and very much in pain who are being denied medications. I am filing a very detailed report with the United Nations over the long term torment of Eric K'napp. I am also filing complaints with the Tuolumne County Grand Jury because it is their sworn duty to investigate the operations of prisons and jails. I would like to emphasize that while there are rogue administrators and medical staff at SCC who aren't following laws, and more who do not even know the laws, let alone follow them, that I have met a number of very kind regular line correctional officers there. The reports these correctional officers gave me on the lies told about the riot made it possible for me to communicate the truth to other journalists.
The Public Information Officer at the time of the riot, C.O. Kevin Wise, has reportedly "retired." I think that whatever was falsely released to the public about the riot is the full responsibility of Warden Frank X. Chavez and that there should be consequences for him lying to the media about a much bloodier riot with at least six hospitalizations which no one would have known about if not for the integrity of the regular prison employees who reported to me. K'napp has been treated in a very cruel manner. Laws have been broken and the move to a Chino dorm is just despicable. He has a family who loves him very much and nine hours away makes it impossible for him to receive the visits that are so important in his life. Moving him will not take my eyes, ears and focus away from the inhumane practices taking place at SCC.
I am hoping that the Judge Oberto intervenes rapidly and puts K'napp back at SCC in a single cell, that Senator Darrell Steinberg who oversees this prison will take a stronger stand about all events and abuses taking place there, and that Inspector General David Shaw and the Tuolumne County Grand Jury respond rapidly to the forthcoming complaints.
But in thousands of cases that I have reviewed over the past 13 years as the UNION director, I know that there is very little justice and custody is given full power over the medical staff. In many instances, medical staff thinks that they are punishers, instead of healers, and they are often more a part of the problem than any type of healing influence. The prisoners statewide are treated as if they have no more value than livestock.
Too many wardens and correctional officers are literally getting away with torture and murder at most of the 33 prisons and none of them are held accountable for double-celling decisions. Inmate lawyers, whistleblowers and those who file complaints are tormented and A.G. Jerry Brown does not hold them accountable. It's a huge mess and the suffering is great. It is no surprise to me that the prisoners and correctional officers are agitated at this facility and that at least two reports of wrongful deaths are probably the tip of the iceberg. The three elderly inmates who are being denied pain medications, the two preventable rapes, and the torment of Eric K'napp are reasons enough for immediate intervention but will it happen when officials have sold their souls to the heavy-handedness of the guard's union?
There is no place to go for help which is why the families must get their complaints on record and assist me in bringing in the United Nations and other federal agencies to put a halt to these inhumane practices. A few complaints do not matter, but 50 or more complaints delivers the message that there is a big problem taking place at this prison. The riot should have been enough of an indicator but the extent and cause of that uprising was mostly covered up and blamed on the prisoners, instead of putting the blame where it should rest, on the prison administrators.
Prison employees are public servants and they should not be able to get away with such abuses, which are taking place in our names, paid for with our tax dollars because the public outcry against these practices is not loud enough. Anyone with a loved one inside SCC should email me at rightor1@yahoo.com and get your complaints on record with the Tuolumne County Grand Jury.
Hopefully they are not so stacked with law enforcement that the members from the community who comprise it will ignore a situation that has already erupted in violence due to extremely poor management practices. The Grand Jury has a duty not to expose who complained, but there are so many in the process of being submitted that it is best to allow the truth to surface.
It is always better when families and prison employees file the complaints, but make sure to name a date, a person and a time. Cockroaches like the darkness and will run from sunshine, which is precisely what these prisons need. It is very important for us to elect no one to office who has taken large amounts of money from law enforcement labor unions and speak out about the torture and murder taking place to the Grand Jury in the area where the prison is located. We have found some of them to be very responsive and helpful, even though it can take several months.
This is the link to the actual complaint form for the Tuolumne County Grand Jury.
http://portal.co.tuolumne.ca.us/ps/psft/V-527000674/Complaint_Investigation_Request_form.pdf
Here is the link to the Grand Jury's home page
http://portal.co.tuolumne.ca.us/psp/ps/TUP_GRAND_JURY/ENTP/c/TU_DEPT_MENU.TUOCM_HTML_COMP.GBL?action=U&CONTENT_PNM=EMPLOYEE&CATGID=2112&FolderPath=PORTAL_ROOT_OBJECT.ADMN_TUOCM_MENUREF_2112&IsFolder=false&IgnoreParamTempl=FolderPath%2cIsFolder
Here is the mailing address, phone number and email. .
Tuolumne County Grand Jury 41 West Yaney Street Sonora California 95370 (209) 533-5568 Fax (209) 533-6572 E-mail: tcgjforeman@mlode.com Copy me on your complaints at B. Cayenne Bird P.O. Box 340371 Sacramento, Ca 95834 Or rightor1@yahoo.com If you lose this information, use google.com. Every county where a prison is located has a Grand Jury who is sworn to investigate problems in these taxpayer-financed institutions but making a complaint is strictly up to those people having the problems.
Dr. B. Cayenne Bird
http://www.1union1.com/advice.htm (Founder and Director)
Send email feedback to Dr. B. Cayenne Bird
Biography - Dr. B. Cayenne Bird
Dr. B. Cayenne Bird is an ordained minister and a 37-year veteran op-ed publisher and journalist who volunteers her time as founder and director of United for No Injustice, Oppression or Neglect UNION. The UNION is active in prison reform and criminal justice issues. She is a mother and grandmother and focuses on human rights and restorative justice. She is also the host of television series "Cayenne Common Sense" and publishes a daily online newsletter.
K'napp is taken out off single cell status after eight years by Warden Frank X. Chavez and sent hundreds of miles away from his family as punishment
Dr. B. Cayenne Bird
Since my last column exposing the lies told to the media journalists by Warden Frank X. Chavez about the riot that happened on September 15, 2010 at Sierra Conservation Center, numerous developments have taken place.
I can only share the reports sent to me by prison employees, UNION family members and inmates who write to me. These events need to be reported in the mainstream news, but due to the media restrictions and lack of access to specific prisoners, important developments too often go beneath the radar.
There is rarely, if ever, any accountability of rogue wardens and prison employees by our illustrious Attorney General Edmund "Jerry" Brown which is the reason that I voted for Laura Wells, Green Party for Governor instead of for him. With Whitman and Brown, who has taken obscene amounts of money from CCPOA, there is only a choice between worse and worse.
The candidate who is most likely to call out rogue wardens such as Frank X. Chavez is Laura Wells, the Green Party candidate. Brown and Whitman will not fix the humanitarian and fiscal crisis taking place due to mismanaged prisons. It's a big mistake to elect either one of them because they are not smart on crime and have no understanding of the needs of mentally ill prisoners. With all the work that we did during the Prop 19 campaign to register "Decline to State Party" voters, a vote for a third party is not wasted this election. We won't know the new DTS tally until October 29 when the Secretary of State releases the required 15 day report.
We had teams out everywhere in California doing the DTS voter registration and a number of cities were already near 30% according to the April 2010 Secretary of State reports. All that said, I would like to update my readers on what's taking place at Sierra Conservation Center now as more brave people step forward to protest the unlawful abuses of Warden Frank X. Chavez and Dr. Rusty Otto.
Inmate families are now writing to and filing reports with the Tuolumne County Grand Jury insisting on investigations in cases of torture and medical neglect of their loved ones. Since my last article which gave an overview of the horrific abuse of six inmates, Warden Frank X. Chavez and Dr. Rusty Otto decided that inmate lawyer Eric K'napp needed to be removed from the prison and "punished."
K'napp suffers from well-documented Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and has been single-celled for eight years and has a classification which recognizes this condition, along with other medical problems. I appealed to Warden Chavez for about 18 months dozens of times to rectify the prison staff's numerous violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and copied lawmakers, attorneys including Prison Law Office and key journalists. Warden Chavez ignored every single appeal, even those politely asking for the most basic compliance with state and federal laws.
In 2008 a lawsuit had to be filed, Cate vs. K'napp, because civil appeals were not enough to illicit a response that produced results or even attempted to correct problems. Warden Chavez, with the full support of Dr. Rusty Otto, forcibly double-celled a special needs CCCMS patient Eric K'napp in retaliation for filing this lawsuit and because they think he is the only source of information for myself and other journalists. If the laws were being followed by these prison officials, so much energy wouldn't need to be spent on covering up. Warden Chavez claims that K'napp's central file doesn't contain medical diagnoses by many doctors for the past decade that recommend single-celling him, not only for K'napp's own mental health and safety but for anyone put in his cell. This is not the truth. There are numerous communications and evidence that the medical and custody staff at SCC are fully aware of K'napp's medical needs and have long ignored them.
The list of people who have been following this prime example of deliberate indifference know that K'napp was moved to SCC because family ties is important to his treatment. When he was moved there in 2008, his doctor at the previous prison made telephone calls to the SCC medical and custody staff, sent letters, and elaborated on his treatment and medical history to make sure that he would be properly celled. Many officials were advised when this happened. So when Warden Chavez makes the lame and untrue excuse for double-celling and transferring to him to a dorm at Chino that the "C File isn't documented with K'napp's medical history", Chavez is simply making a public spectacle out of himself. If the medical history isn't there now, it's because Warden Chavez and/or Dr. Rusty Otto removed it so that they could manipulate the system and in so doing have compromised the mental and physical health of a prisoner just to cover themselves and to stop the flow of news information.
Warden Chavez decided to punish K'napp for suing him and for passing on information about inmate abuse and riots to me and to other journalists and agencies. So even after eight years of doctor's recommending otherwise, Warden Chavez put a mentally ill inmate with a history of cell fights into K'napp's cell.
A wrong-celling decision is literally a matter of life and death for every prisoner, and especially for those with CCCMS classifications. A prisoner dies almost every day and thousands are maimed for life due to careless double-celling decisions.
That unwise and unethical move predictably triggered symptoms of PTSD and K'napp had to be rushed to a San Quentin crisis bed where he spent two weeks undergoing intense evaluations and treatment because SCC doesn't have one of its own. The very capable mental health team there made an evaluation that confirmed what ten other CDCR physicians have said for the past decade, that Eric K'napp should not be double-celled because doing so triggers flash-backs of traumatic events.
Dr. Paul Burton, head of the San Quentin crisis team minced no words in making his recommendation when K'napp was sent back to Sierra Conservation Center. Yet Warden Chavez and the medical staff completely misconstrued and ignored what the crisis team's evaluation told them and put K'napp exactly back in the cell with the same person whose presence caused the crisis bed to be necessary in the first place.
Talk about cruelty. Talk about unbearable incompetence. But often treatments at outside hospitals are ignored at many prisons in California, which often ends in preventable death or permanent disabilities. Warden Chavez put a different person in the cell with K'napp after considerable outside pressure was applied to return him to single cell status. The latest cellmate is a young man who will be released within two weeks. Again, both prisoners are in danger. Warden Chavez knows this fact and Dr. Rusty Otto knows it but they are more intent on "punishing" and getting K'napp out of the prison than on doing the right thing. Numerous people from the community who have no one in prison called and wrote the warden and Dr. Rusty Otto asking that K'napp be single-celled and treated humanely.
Instead of backing off this power game, Warden Chavez wrongfully told the guards to pack K'napp and his legal materials up, that he will be now be a "Level 2" prisoner who must live in a dormitory in Chino hundreds of miles away from his family which is the opposite of what should be taking place. This stealth move is happening overnight in order to divert focus off K'napp who has done an excellent job at documenting and reporting these abuses for several years, in spite of his own immense suffering. I've seen this type of retaliation many times to inmate lawyers and whistleblowers and there is no intervention at any of the 33 state prisons. In this case, the course of events were very well documented but that has made no difference so far.
The recommendations of the San Quentin Crisis team were totally ignored, and laws were broken, and are still being broken in this and other cases at the prison. Warden Chavez and Dr. Rusty Otto both know that Eric K'napp's work as an inmate lawyer is his life. They also know that he has three important cases on legal deadline and that moving him, shaking his concentration by double-celling him, harassing and forcing him to work in the prison kitchen with an injured back will impede his access to the courts.
Warden Frank X. Chavez blocked K'napp's emergency appeals, his mail to the courts, delayed signature only certified mail that I sent by four weeks and often makes sure that he doesn't get his mail at all. He also claims that K'napps medical history of why he requires single-celling isn't in the file. The goal is denied court access and Frank X. Chavez is a master at achieving that blockage. These common practices at SCC and other prisons cost the taxpayers millions, deny due process to the prisoners and cause overload on the court system. Still, there is no accountability for this kind of dirty play.
Warden Frank X. Chavez should be arrested and the doctor fired for what they've done just because both are named as defendants in a lawsuit that didn't have to be filed if not for their deliberate indifference and violation of ADA, state and federal laws. There are other defendants named in the lawsuit who should also be fired such as Sgt. C. Koenig, Dr. Jack St Clair and Patricia Quinn. They had multiple chances to right the wrongs which they are still refusing to do in all six inmate's cases. Somehow they believe that they are above the laws. Whose fault is that arrogance of people operating on our taxpayer dollars?
An emergency restraining order to stop the forced double-celling which would have prevented K'napp from ending up in the San Quentin crisis bed, was filed with Judge Sheila Oberto on October 1, 2010 and an updated addendum added on October 20, 2010. The courts move so slowly, if and when they move at all, that they are ineffective at best. By the time Judge Oberto gets around to this urgent situation, K'napp will already have been moved to a dorm in Chino which is a very unhealthy place for him and all those surrounding him to be. But in the Warden Chavez' eyes, it makes him powerful to break laws and defy the Coleman/Plata rulings. With so little accountability for this type of unspeakable cruelty and manipulation of a corrupt system running amok, Chavez isn't worried about consequences.
I have a number of sources within SCC and am aware that besides several families filing complaints with the Grand Jury that correctional officers have filed a complaint with Inspector General David Shaw. Riots happen due to gross mismanagement and a number of correctional officers have taken a stand against Warden Chavez. There is almost no intervention by Secretary Matthew Cate or Inspector General David Shaw when inmates and their families complain, but when it comes from the guards, this might prompt some action.
I am filing complaints with the United Nations on behalf of inmates who were carelessly double-celled at this prison which resulted in two rapes, and for three elderly inmates who are very ill and very much in pain who are being denied medications. I am filing a very detailed report with the United Nations over the long term torment of Eric K'napp. I am also filing complaints with the Tuolumne County Grand Jury because it is their sworn duty to investigate the operations of prisons and jails. I would like to emphasize that while there are rogue administrators and medical staff at SCC who aren't following laws, and more who do not even know the laws, let alone follow them, that I have met a number of very kind regular line correctional officers there. The reports these correctional officers gave me on the lies told about the riot made it possible for me to communicate the truth to other journalists.
The Public Information Officer at the time of the riot, C.O. Kevin Wise, has reportedly "retired." I think that whatever was falsely released to the public about the riot is the full responsibility of Warden Frank X. Chavez and that there should be consequences for him lying to the media about a much bloodier riot with at least six hospitalizations which no one would have known about if not for the integrity of the regular prison employees who reported to me. K'napp has been treated in a very cruel manner. Laws have been broken and the move to a Chino dorm is just despicable. He has a family who loves him very much and nine hours away makes it impossible for him to receive the visits that are so important in his life. Moving him will not take my eyes, ears and focus away from the inhumane practices taking place at SCC.
I am hoping that the Judge Oberto intervenes rapidly and puts K'napp back at SCC in a single cell, that Senator Darrell Steinberg who oversees this prison will take a stronger stand about all events and abuses taking place there, and that Inspector General David Shaw and the Tuolumne County Grand Jury respond rapidly to the forthcoming complaints.
But in thousands of cases that I have reviewed over the past 13 years as the UNION director, I know that there is very little justice and custody is given full power over the medical staff. In many instances, medical staff thinks that they are punishers, instead of healers, and they are often more a part of the problem than any type of healing influence. The prisoners statewide are treated as if they have no more value than livestock.
Too many wardens and correctional officers are literally getting away with torture and murder at most of the 33 prisons and none of them are held accountable for double-celling decisions. Inmate lawyers, whistleblowers and those who file complaints are tormented and A.G. Jerry Brown does not hold them accountable. It's a huge mess and the suffering is great. It is no surprise to me that the prisoners and correctional officers are agitated at this facility and that at least two reports of wrongful deaths are probably the tip of the iceberg. The three elderly inmates who are being denied pain medications, the two preventable rapes, and the torment of Eric K'napp are reasons enough for immediate intervention but will it happen when officials have sold their souls to the heavy-handedness of the guard's union?
There is no place to go for help which is why the families must get their complaints on record and assist me in bringing in the United Nations and other federal agencies to put a halt to these inhumane practices. A few complaints do not matter, but 50 or more complaints delivers the message that there is a big problem taking place at this prison. The riot should have been enough of an indicator but the extent and cause of that uprising was mostly covered up and blamed on the prisoners, instead of putting the blame where it should rest, on the prison administrators.
Prison employees are public servants and they should not be able to get away with such abuses, which are taking place in our names, paid for with our tax dollars because the public outcry against these practices is not loud enough. Anyone with a loved one inside SCC should email me at rightor1@yahoo.com and get your complaints on record with the Tuolumne County Grand Jury.
Hopefully they are not so stacked with law enforcement that the members from the community who comprise it will ignore a situation that has already erupted in violence due to extremely poor management practices. The Grand Jury has a duty not to expose who complained, but there are so many in the process of being submitted that it is best to allow the truth to surface.
It is always better when families and prison employees file the complaints, but make sure to name a date, a person and a time. Cockroaches like the darkness and will run from sunshine, which is precisely what these prisons need. It is very important for us to elect no one to office who has taken large amounts of money from law enforcement labor unions and speak out about the torture and murder taking place to the Grand Jury in the area where the prison is located. We have found some of them to be very responsive and helpful, even though it can take several months.
This is the link to the actual complaint form for the Tuolumne County Grand Jury.
http://portal.co.tuolumne.ca.us/ps/psft/V-527000674/Complaint_Investigation_Request_form.pdf
Here is the link to the Grand Jury's home page
http://portal.co.tuolumne.ca.us/psp/ps/TUP_GRAND_JURY/ENTP/c/TU_DEPT_MENU.TUOCM_HTML_COMP.GBL?action=U&CONTENT_PNM=EMPLOYEE&CATGID=2112&FolderPath=PORTAL_ROOT_OBJECT.ADMN_TUOCM_MENUREF_2112&IsFolder=false&IgnoreParamTempl=FolderPath%2cIsFolder
Here is the mailing address, phone number and email. .
Tuolumne County Grand Jury 41 West Yaney Street Sonora California 95370 (209) 533-5568 Fax (209) 533-6572 E-mail: tcgjforeman@mlode.com Copy me on your complaints at B. Cayenne Bird P.O. Box 340371 Sacramento, Ca 95834 Or rightor1@yahoo.com If you lose this information, use google.com. Every county where a prison is located has a Grand Jury who is sworn to investigate problems in these taxpayer-financed institutions but making a complaint is strictly up to those people having the problems.
Dr. B. Cayenne Bird
http://www.1union1.com/advice.htm (Founder and Director)
Send email feedback to Dr. B. Cayenne Bird
Biography - Dr. B. Cayenne Bird
Dr. B. Cayenne Bird is an ordained minister and a 37-year veteran op-ed publisher and journalist who volunteers her time as founder and director of United for No Injustice, Oppression or Neglect UNION. The UNION is active in prison reform and criminal justice issues. She is a mother and grandmother and focuses on human rights and restorative justice. She is also the host of television series "Cayenne Common Sense" and publishes a daily online newsletter.
Banks must help prisoners re-adjust to cut crime rate
Banks must help prisoners re-adjust to cut crime rate
Banks must do more to help former prisoners access financial services to keep re-offending rates down, a report said today
Exclusion from bank accounts, insurance and affordable credit is preventing many former offenders from getting into work and securing a home, while it is also forcing their families into debt, according to the Prison Reform Trust and reformed offenders group Unlock.
The Ministry of Justice has highlighted the fact that stable employment and housing are the most important factors in reducing the risk of people reoffending.
But the groups pointed out that it was difficult to achieve either of these things without access to basic financial services.
Chris Bath, director of projects at Unlock and co-author of the report, said: ''Financial services are a crucial foundation for engagement in modern society.
''If we want people to lead productive lives, working, paying taxes and providing their family with a home, we cannot allow the justice system to sever people from their finances, even less to create lifelong financial exclusion.''
The research found that a third of people in prison did not have a bank account, and more than half had been rejected for a loan. Four out of five people had also had problems getting insurance.
People in prison were also 10 times more likely to have borrowed money from a loan shark than the average British household.
The report warned that this reliance on loan sharks was likely to drive up crime, as people took desperate measures to avoid the often violent techniques used by unlicensed money lenders.
One person told researchers that the reason he was in prison was because he needed to get money to pay off his bills. He said he had been rejected by banks and felt he had already asked his mother for too much.
Nearly two-thirds of prisoners said they had struggled to pay bills or were in real financial difficulties before they went to prison.
More than half of families also said they had taken on debt since their relative had been convicted.
The report said that rather than tackling these issues, the justice system was exacerbating financial exclusion.
It said 64 per cent of former prisoners thought their debts had worsened during their sentence, but three-quarters said they had never been asked about their finances.
The groups are calling for people to be able to open a bank account and receive lessons in handling money before they leave prison. People should also be able to manage their bank accounts while they are in prison.
Prisoners should also have the opportunity to earn a real wage, enabling them to save money, support their family or reduce debt. They should pay tax and National Insurance on the money.
The groups would also like the insurance industry to lift its blanket ban on offering cover to people with convictions, while the credit industry should also develop ways of treating people who have been in prison more fairly.
Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said: ''Far too often people leave prison only to face a second sentence of no insurance or banking, mountainous debt, loan sharks circling and a family to provide for.
''The rehabilitation revolution stands or falls on banks, insurers, public agencies and government working together to allow people to take financial responsibility for themselves.''
Banks must do more to help former prisoners access financial services to keep re-offending rates down, a report said today
Exclusion from bank accounts, insurance and affordable credit is preventing many former offenders from getting into work and securing a home, while it is also forcing their families into debt, according to the Prison Reform Trust and reformed offenders group Unlock.
The Ministry of Justice has highlighted the fact that stable employment and housing are the most important factors in reducing the risk of people reoffending.
But the groups pointed out that it was difficult to achieve either of these things without access to basic financial services.
Chris Bath, director of projects at Unlock and co-author of the report, said: ''Financial services are a crucial foundation for engagement in modern society.
''If we want people to lead productive lives, working, paying taxes and providing their family with a home, we cannot allow the justice system to sever people from their finances, even less to create lifelong financial exclusion.''
The research found that a third of people in prison did not have a bank account, and more than half had been rejected for a loan. Four out of five people had also had problems getting insurance.
People in prison were also 10 times more likely to have borrowed money from a loan shark than the average British household.
The report warned that this reliance on loan sharks was likely to drive up crime, as people took desperate measures to avoid the often violent techniques used by unlicensed money lenders.
One person told researchers that the reason he was in prison was because he needed to get money to pay off his bills. He said he had been rejected by banks and felt he had already asked his mother for too much.
Nearly two-thirds of prisoners said they had struggled to pay bills or were in real financial difficulties before they went to prison.
More than half of families also said they had taken on debt since their relative had been convicted.
The report said that rather than tackling these issues, the justice system was exacerbating financial exclusion.
It said 64 per cent of former prisoners thought their debts had worsened during their sentence, but three-quarters said they had never been asked about their finances.
The groups are calling for people to be able to open a bank account and receive lessons in handling money before they leave prison. People should also be able to manage their bank accounts while they are in prison.
Prisoners should also have the opportunity to earn a real wage, enabling them to save money, support their family or reduce debt. They should pay tax and National Insurance on the money.
The groups would also like the insurance industry to lift its blanket ban on offering cover to people with convictions, while the credit industry should also develop ways of treating people who have been in prison more fairly.
Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said: ''Far too often people leave prison only to face a second sentence of no insurance or banking, mountainous debt, loan sharks circling and a family to provide for.
''The rehabilitation revolution stands or falls on banks, insurers, public agencies and government working together to allow people to take financial responsibility for themselves.''
Election at Manila City jail more peaceful than in regular precincts
Election at Manila City jail more peaceful than in regular precincts
AMITA LEGASPI, GMANews.TV
When someone mentions the word "jail," we almost immediately think of chaos and violence.
However, on Monday, the Manila City Jail (MCJ), known as the home of "war freak" gangs Sigue-sigue and Sputnik among others, turned into a peaceful polling precinct.
clad in yellow shirts, some in shorts while others in pants, the 556 inmates who registered to vote patiently lined up and waited for their turn to cast their vote.
Outside the conference room, converted into a special polling precinct, there were no sample ballots scattered on the floor nor posters of candidates plastered on the walls.
There were no candidates trying to shake a voter’s hand to secure a vote.
The conduct of the voting inside Manila City Jail, home to some 4,000 detainees, was more orderly and peaceful than other polling precincts in the country.
Only 20 detainees were allowed inside the voting room while the others were asked to line up outside to avoid overcrowding.
Some 50 jail officers were on hand to monitor the voting. After voting, the inmates were escorted back to their cells.
Fulfilled voters
Emerging from the polling precinct, Raymond Sahagon was happy that he once again had an opportunity to elect leaders. He also participated in the May 10 national and local elections.
“Masayang masaya po dahil kahit papaano nagkaroon kami ng opportunity na makapamili kung sino yung gusto naming kandidato kahit nandito kami sa loob ng kulungan," he said. Sahagon has been detained at the MCJ for more than six years.
He added: “Masaya po kami na makapili ng bagong lider na alam naming makakatulong sa aming barangay."
(We are happy that we can choose a new leader whom we know could help our barangay.)
This was also the sentiment of Arlene Pacia, who has been in jail since 2007.
“Masaya po ako kasi kahit papaano kaming mga nakakulong po ay nakaboto sa aming mga barangay, sa pamamagitan nito ay maaari naming masuportahan ang barangay namin," she said.
(I am happy that somehow we who are in jail were able to vote in our village. Through this we can support our barangay.)
Registration more difficult than election
Loretta Ann Rosales, head of the Commission on Human Rights, and Director Rosendo Dial, chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, were happy, as well, with the conduct of the voting. The two officials oversaw the conduct of the voting.
In an interview with GMANews.TV, Dial said they experienced more difficulty during the registration of the detainees than the actual election itself.
“Yung pagdadala ng inmate papunta sa Comelec kami nahirapan. Although may guidelines ang Comelec na sana, yung local Comelec, ang pupunta dito (sa jail)," he said.
(The sending of inmates to Comelec, that was difficult. Although there were guidelines, I hope Comelec, the local Comelec, would have been the one to go to jail [for the registration of voters]).
He admitted that they failed to bring the other inmates to the Comelec district offices for registration.
He said the number of detained registered voters were lower in this election than last May, when there were 680 voters.
Dial said some of the voters have already been released while those who have just been committed to the city jail were not included yet on the list. The other detainees also refused to register, Dial said.
Out of the city jail's 556 registered voters on Monday, 319 were female and 237 were male.
“Dito ang pinakaorderly sa loob ng jail, organized sila e pag sinabi mo na upo, upo lahat yan. Pag sinabi mong tayo, tatayo lahat yan kaya well organized dito," the BJMP said.
(It was most orderly here inside the jail, they were organized; when you tell them to sit, they will all sit. When you tell them to stand, they will all stand that's why it was well-organized here.)
He cited the importance of allowing the inmates to vote.
“Hindi naman convicted ang mga iyan. They are still presumed innocent until proven otherwise kaya yung right nandiyan pa rin sa kanila although privileges are curtailed. Ang kanilang constitutional right ay nasa kanila pa rin at isa dito yung pagboto," said Dial.
(They are not convicts. They are still presumed innocent until proven otherwise that's why they have their rights although their privileges are curtailed. They still have constitutional rights and one of these is the right to vote.)
He added that even those detained in the New Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa whose conviction has not been acted with finality by the Supreme Court, can still vote.
Restorative justice
In a press conference, Rosales pointed out that allowing the inmates to exercise their right of suffrage is valuable to the prisoners.
Rosales said the voting exercise brings back the inmates’ confidence, self-worth and hope that one day they could go back to normal life and be accepted by society.
“To us, this is very very important because this is our way para mapaloob sa jail system yung tinatawag na restorative justice, in other words humanize the jail system," she said.
(To us, this is very important because this is our way to include in the jail system what we call restorative justice, in other words, humanize the jail system.)
She added many of the inmates go back to being criminals if restorative justice will not be practiced in the jails.
“We should inculcate human rights in jails. Yung pagiging makatao ang dapat ipakita hindi yung punitive lamang. Mahalagang malaman na me karapatang pantao ang preso kahit na sila ay nakakulong," Rosales said.
She further said the BJMP and Comelec should get out of their way to make sure that detainees are registered.
18,000 inmates
Last week, Rosales said the CHR formed teams to monitor the voting of 18,000 inmates in Monday's elections.
Rosales formed at least six special teams to oversee the elections in six of the country's most populated jails.
She said the teams will monitor the conduct of elections in jails in Manila, Valenzuela, Antipolo, Las Piñas, Bataan and Navotas.
“We will expand beyond Metro Manila, we will concentrate on highly urbanized centers like Cebu and Davao because it’s easier for us to work out the registration system until we are able to institutionalize detainee voting," she said.
She added: “Sa jail system gagawin natin ang lahat ng paraan para maging makatao ang pamumuhay nitong mga preso at yung kanilang civil and political rights ay maprotektahan, napakaimportante nun."
Aside from the special teams to monitor voting in jails, Rosales said quick reaction teams have been formed to respond to untoward incidents in various polling precincts.
She said she has also instructed CHR regional offices to send teams to polling places in their respective districts to monitor the conduct of elections.
Both Dial and Rosales said Philippines is the first country in Asia to allow detainee voting and the fourth around the world.
Special polling precincts
The Commission on Election on Monday set up two special polling precincts inside the MCJ to allow the registered voters, who were incarcerated for different crimes, to cast their votes.
However, only one of the polling precincts opened on time due to the absence of one of the special board of election tellers (SBET). The ballots were also not delivered on time.
The second SBET was completed around noon and continued with what was left behind by the other board which opened around 7:00 am and ended at noon.
The SBET needed to close early to give the tellers enough time to segregate the filled up ballots depending on the barangays of the detainees.
The tellers likewise had to bring the ballots to the respective BETs and precincts to be included in the counting.
Because of this some of the detainees were not able to vote. The election officers could not explain the delay in the delivery of the ballots.
Only 120 of the 237 registered male voters managed to cast their votes when the SBET decided to stop the voting period, Capt. Ricky Pegalan of the BJMP said. – VVP, GMANews.TV
AMITA LEGASPI, GMANews.TV
When someone mentions the word "jail," we almost immediately think of chaos and violence.
However, on Monday, the Manila City Jail (MCJ), known as the home of "war freak" gangs Sigue-sigue and Sputnik among others, turned into a peaceful polling precinct.
clad in yellow shirts, some in shorts while others in pants, the 556 inmates who registered to vote patiently lined up and waited for their turn to cast their vote.
Outside the conference room, converted into a special polling precinct, there were no sample ballots scattered on the floor nor posters of candidates plastered on the walls.
There were no candidates trying to shake a voter’s hand to secure a vote.
The conduct of the voting inside Manila City Jail, home to some 4,000 detainees, was more orderly and peaceful than other polling precincts in the country.
Only 20 detainees were allowed inside the voting room while the others were asked to line up outside to avoid overcrowding.
Some 50 jail officers were on hand to monitor the voting. After voting, the inmates were escorted back to their cells.
Fulfilled voters
Emerging from the polling precinct, Raymond Sahagon was happy that he once again had an opportunity to elect leaders. He also participated in the May 10 national and local elections.
“Masayang masaya po dahil kahit papaano nagkaroon kami ng opportunity na makapamili kung sino yung gusto naming kandidato kahit nandito kami sa loob ng kulungan," he said. Sahagon has been detained at the MCJ for more than six years.
He added: “Masaya po kami na makapili ng bagong lider na alam naming makakatulong sa aming barangay."
(We are happy that we can choose a new leader whom we know could help our barangay.)
This was also the sentiment of Arlene Pacia, who has been in jail since 2007.
“Masaya po ako kasi kahit papaano kaming mga nakakulong po ay nakaboto sa aming mga barangay, sa pamamagitan nito ay maaari naming masuportahan ang barangay namin," she said.
(I am happy that somehow we who are in jail were able to vote in our village. Through this we can support our barangay.)
Registration more difficult than election
Loretta Ann Rosales, head of the Commission on Human Rights, and Director Rosendo Dial, chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, were happy, as well, with the conduct of the voting. The two officials oversaw the conduct of the voting.
In an interview with GMANews.TV, Dial said they experienced more difficulty during the registration of the detainees than the actual election itself.
“Yung pagdadala ng inmate papunta sa Comelec kami nahirapan. Although may guidelines ang Comelec na sana, yung local Comelec, ang pupunta dito (sa jail)," he said.
(The sending of inmates to Comelec, that was difficult. Although there were guidelines, I hope Comelec, the local Comelec, would have been the one to go to jail [for the registration of voters]).
He admitted that they failed to bring the other inmates to the Comelec district offices for registration.
He said the number of detained registered voters were lower in this election than last May, when there were 680 voters.
Dial said some of the voters have already been released while those who have just been committed to the city jail were not included yet on the list. The other detainees also refused to register, Dial said.
Out of the city jail's 556 registered voters on Monday, 319 were female and 237 were male.
“Dito ang pinakaorderly sa loob ng jail, organized sila e pag sinabi mo na upo, upo lahat yan. Pag sinabi mong tayo, tatayo lahat yan kaya well organized dito," the BJMP said.
(It was most orderly here inside the jail, they were organized; when you tell them to sit, they will all sit. When you tell them to stand, they will all stand that's why it was well-organized here.)
He cited the importance of allowing the inmates to vote.
“Hindi naman convicted ang mga iyan. They are still presumed innocent until proven otherwise kaya yung right nandiyan pa rin sa kanila although privileges are curtailed. Ang kanilang constitutional right ay nasa kanila pa rin at isa dito yung pagboto," said Dial.
(They are not convicts. They are still presumed innocent until proven otherwise that's why they have their rights although their privileges are curtailed. They still have constitutional rights and one of these is the right to vote.)
He added that even those detained in the New Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa whose conviction has not been acted with finality by the Supreme Court, can still vote.
Restorative justice
In a press conference, Rosales pointed out that allowing the inmates to exercise their right of suffrage is valuable to the prisoners.
Rosales said the voting exercise brings back the inmates’ confidence, self-worth and hope that one day they could go back to normal life and be accepted by society.
“To us, this is very very important because this is our way para mapaloob sa jail system yung tinatawag na restorative justice, in other words humanize the jail system," she said.
(To us, this is very important because this is our way to include in the jail system what we call restorative justice, in other words, humanize the jail system.)
She added many of the inmates go back to being criminals if restorative justice will not be practiced in the jails.
“We should inculcate human rights in jails. Yung pagiging makatao ang dapat ipakita hindi yung punitive lamang. Mahalagang malaman na me karapatang pantao ang preso kahit na sila ay nakakulong," Rosales said.
She further said the BJMP and Comelec should get out of their way to make sure that detainees are registered.
18,000 inmates
Last week, Rosales said the CHR formed teams to monitor the voting of 18,000 inmates in Monday's elections.
Rosales formed at least six special teams to oversee the elections in six of the country's most populated jails.
She said the teams will monitor the conduct of elections in jails in Manila, Valenzuela, Antipolo, Las Piñas, Bataan and Navotas.
“We will expand beyond Metro Manila, we will concentrate on highly urbanized centers like Cebu and Davao because it’s easier for us to work out the registration system until we are able to institutionalize detainee voting," she said.
She added: “Sa jail system gagawin natin ang lahat ng paraan para maging makatao ang pamumuhay nitong mga preso at yung kanilang civil and political rights ay maprotektahan, napakaimportante nun."
Aside from the special teams to monitor voting in jails, Rosales said quick reaction teams have been formed to respond to untoward incidents in various polling precincts.
She said she has also instructed CHR regional offices to send teams to polling places in their respective districts to monitor the conduct of elections.
Both Dial and Rosales said Philippines is the first country in Asia to allow detainee voting and the fourth around the world.
Special polling precincts
The Commission on Election on Monday set up two special polling precincts inside the MCJ to allow the registered voters, who were incarcerated for different crimes, to cast their votes.
However, only one of the polling precincts opened on time due to the absence of one of the special board of election tellers (SBET). The ballots were also not delivered on time.
The second SBET was completed around noon and continued with what was left behind by the other board which opened around 7:00 am and ended at noon.
The SBET needed to close early to give the tellers enough time to segregate the filled up ballots depending on the barangays of the detainees.
The tellers likewise had to bring the ballots to the respective BETs and precincts to be included in the counting.
Because of this some of the detainees were not able to vote. The election officers could not explain the delay in the delivery of the ballots.
Only 120 of the 237 registered male voters managed to cast their votes when the SBET decided to stop the voting period, Capt. Ricky Pegalan of the BJMP said. – VVP, GMANews.TV
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)