We're at the mercy of muddled extreme right wing thinkers

We're at the mercy of muddled extreme right wing thinkers

The nut job in this case is David Green, from the so-called think tank Silly Arse (or Civitas as he calls it).

Yesterday Tim Blackwell sent me a Direct Message via Twitter to ask whether I had seen the garbage I have republished below...

We’re at the muddled mercy of European judges

A bill of rights is vital to protect UK sovereignty which finds itself under severe threat from the people in the European halls of power

David Green Published: 27 February 2011

The European Court of Human Rights is encroaching further into British life (Joanna Leguerre)

For a long time the European Convention on Human Rights was a respected statement of the fundamental principles of a civilised society. Now it is little more than a rationale for the politician-judges of the European Court of Human Rights to impose their personal preferences on everyone else. Supporters of the new judicial absolutism claim to speak with the authority of the European convention and never tire of mentioning that Churchill was an enthusiast, but they ignore the fact that the court’s recent decision on prisoner votes reversed the meaning of the document we signed.

The original working papers on the Council of Europe’s website show that the wording of the first draft was amended to allow Britain to continue its policy of withholding the vote from imprisoned criminals. Having themselves ignored the meaning of the original document, supporters of the court brazenly accuse the British government of failing to respect human rights. Some, such as Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty, claim that the convention “protects us all from the whims of politicians”. In truth we need to protect ourselves from the whims of the European judges who are a lot less accountable than our own MPs.

Earlier generations fought a civil war, executed a deceitful king in 1649 and expelled another in 1688 to establish the principle that the people themselves should make the laws they live by. Since passing the Bill of Rights of 1689, we have placed our faith in open discussion, a free press and the possibility of throwing a government out merely by passing a vote of no confidence in it in the House of Commons. The Americans opted for a system that gave power to a Supreme Court, but they were to discover that judges were perfectly capable of reversing the meaning of the original constitution.

In 1857, the US Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott, a slave who was seeking freedom from his owner, had no right to sue an American citizen.

Indeed, no slave could be a citizen of the United States and bring a case before its courts. Fifty years earlier, in 1807, the British parliament had abolished the slave trade after a long popular campaign, suggesting that perhaps the “whims of politicians” can be a better safeguard for human rights than a written constitution enforced by all-powerful judges.

In order to reassert our right to make our own laws, we do not need to renounce the European convention. We could remain signatories and treat it as a useful moral code, as we did until we passed the Human Rights Act in 1998. The convention contains no enforcement powers; there is only a procedure for “friendly settlement” among members of the Council of Europe.

A new bill of rights should reaffirm the constitutional settlement of 1689. Parliament is sovereign. The executive is no longer the king but the ministers drawn from parliament. They hold office only so long as they command the confidence of the house. The whole government can be removed, as I have said, if the House of Commons passes a vote of no confidence. There is no need for another civil war and no need for the mass demonstrations of the kind we see today in the Middle East.

Parliament’s legitimacy as the final power in the land depends on the support of the majority. To ensure consent, elections must be held regularly and the crown can dissolve parliament at any time, so long as an immediate election is called to test opinion. Since the Act of Settlement of 1701, judges have been appointed by the crown but can be removed by a vote of both houses of parliament. The power has been used only once but it was reaffirmed in the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act. It reminds judges that they are the agents of parliament in holding the executive to account.

The greatest interpreter of our constitution, AV Dicey, showed that the electorate is in fact the sovereign of England. The whole people act through a “supreme legislature” whose conduct is regulated by understandings that secure the conformity of parliament to the will of the nation.

Under the Westminster system, because the members of the government are normally MPs and subject to removal by a majority in the Commons, it is easy to lose sight of the vital distinction between the executive and legislature. But when judges review the decisions of the government and find them unlawful, they are acting on behalf of parliament. They are overruling the executive, not the elected legislature. Indeed, from time to time, parliament has overruled the courts by passing acts of indemnity.

Above all, a bill of rights should affirm that no decision of the European court has any authority unless it has been discussed and approved by parliament. Without express parliamentary approval, European decisions should be seen as no more than moral guidance that our public authorities, including the courts, can take into account as they think best.

David Green is director of Civitas

(Source: The Sunday Times, 27 February 2011, (£)).

Comment: David Green's pathetic argument appears to be that the UK is at the mercy of muddled thinking by judges of the European Court of Human Rights. His solution is that the UK needs to pass a UK Bill of Rights, to protect UK sovereignty from the interference of Johnny Foreigner. Let us examine David Green's pathetic argument and analyse it and expose it for what it is. That is, A Big Lie.

"For a long time the European Convention on Human Rights was a respected statement of the fundamental principles of a civilised society. Now it is little more than a rationale for the politician-judges of the European Court of Human Rights to impose their personal preferences on everyone else. Supporters of the new judicial absolutism claim to speak with the authority of the European convention and never tire of mentioning that Churchill was an enthusiast, but they ignore the fact that the court’s recent decision on prisoner votes reversed the meaning of the document we signed".

Three weeks is a long time in politics for Civitas because above the think tank attacks the Convention and below it praises the Convention! Double-Speak from an organisation with double standards!

"Drafted in the shadow of the atrocities committed during the Second World War, the European Convention is a sound abstract statement of the need to protect human rights and freedoms. Britain was the first country to ratify the Convention, and significantly influenced its content and scope. Even now, over sixty years later, the broadly drafted principles continue to resonate with our modern-day political and legal priorities".

In 1910, Winston Churchill said:

"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country".

If the Convention "was a respected statement of the fundamental principles of a civilised society", why was it not incorporated into domestic law until 50 years after the UK ratified the Convention? Another 10 years have passed and the UK is still 60 years behind the civilised countries of Europe which incorporated the Convention into their domestic laws from the outset. It would appear that Parliament, which is supposed to represent the electorate, decided that the electorate was not fit to benefit from the minimum standard of human rights enjoyed by the rest of Europe.

It is ridiculous to claim that "the politician-judges of the European Court of Human Rights". The judges are independent of the politicians in Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Nor do they impose their personal preferences on everybody else. As I have just pointed out, it was the personal preferences of MPs in Parliament not to give the electorate the minimum standard of human rights.

It is ridiculous to speak of "the new judicial absolutism", when the ECtHR was created in 1959 and the present format established in November 1998. The only thing that is new is the ratification of Protocol 14, in February 2010, which gave the Court new powers to deal with Member States which ignore the Articles of the Convention and/or decisions of the Court. The evidence is that the UK has ignored fully complying with Hirst v UK (No2) for over 5 years. It is laughable that David Green argues "...but they ignore the fact that the court’s recent decision on prisoner votes reversed the meaning of the document we signed". Given the the Court relied upon Article 3 of the First Protocol of the Convention in deciding the case, and followed its own previous case-law, there was no departure from let alone overturning of the Convention. The truth is that the UK does not like being found guilty of a human rights violation, and does not like the Court decision. However, that does not make the Court decision wrong. It remains the case that the UK is in the wrong.

"The original working papers on the Council of Europe’s website show that the wording of the first draft was amended to allow Britain to continue its policy of withholding the vote from imprisoned criminals. Having themselves ignored the meaning of the original document, supporters of the court brazenly accuse the British government of failing to respect human rights. Some, such as Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty, claim that the convention “protects us all from the whims of politicians”. In truth we need to protect ourselves from the whims of the European judges who are a lot less accountable than our own MPs".

I have read the original Prepartory work on Article 3 of Protocol No1, and the text went through various amendments before being finally agreed upon. It is untruthful for David Green to claim that "the first draft was amended to allow Britain to continue its policy of withholding the vote from imprisoned criminals". Nowhere was prisoners even mentioned. There is a reference to the term "universal suffrage" and a reference that in the UK we only had "general suffrage". We still had the British Empire at that time which included the dominions, therefore the reluctance to extend the franchise may have had something to do with that and not prisoners at all. Given that the actual text of Article 3 of Protocol No1 is contained within the decision of Hirst v UK (No2), the Court cannot be accused of having ignored its meaning. The Court did state that in this day and age the principle of universal suffrage applies. The law is a 'living instrument' it develops over time and is not static. It is this which the UK really objects to; being dragged screaming and shouting into the 21st century! The UK has failed to respect human rights. Shami Chakrabarti is right about the purpose of the Convention. If the UK wants to protect itself from the findings of guilt by the ECtHR judges, then the UK only has to honour its obligations which we signed up to. If our MPs are so accountable, how come they have got away with fiddling their expenses for so long they think they had a right to steal from the public purse?

"Earlier generations fought a civil war, executed a deceitful king in 1649 and expelled another in 1688 to establish the principle that the people themselves should make the laws they live by. Since passing the Bill of Rights of 1689, we have placed our faith in open discussion, a free press and the possibility of throwing a government out merely by passing a vote of no confidence in it in the House of Commons. The Americans opted for a system that gave power to a Supreme Court, but they were to discover that judges were perfectly capable of reversing the meaning of the original constitution".

It is neither historically nor etymologically correct to claim that we have had a civil war in this country. The execution of Charles the First was a battle between Parliament and the King, and James the II was expelled by Parliament, in both cases the issue was not about the "people themselves should make the laws they live by" but the barons and ruling class making the laws. The Bill of Rights 1689 was not about the people's rights, but about the rights of the barons over the King. We do have open discussion up to a point. I would not claim that in the UK we have a "free press". I don't have confidence in a vote of no confidence throwing out a government with a large majority. I too would opt for the power to be given to the Supreme Court to strike down Acts of Parliament. Sometimes ancient documents do not cover present circumstances and the judges merely update original constitutions. It is ridiculous to suggest "that perhaps the “whims of politicians” can be a better safeguard for human rights than a written constitution enforced by all-powerful judges". The pain of confinement of prisoners has regularly been increased on the whim of a politician, therefore, this Executive abuse needs to be guarded against by the courts.

"In order to reassert our right to make our own laws, we do not need to renounce the European convention. We could remain signatories and treat it as a useful moral code, as we did until we passed the Human Rights Act in 1998. The convention contains no enforcement powers; there is only a procedure for “friendly settlement” among members of the Council of Europe".

Given that we already have the power to make our own laws, it is pointless reasserting this right. Only a totalitarian regime would renounce the Convention. David Green shows a distinct ignorance to both international and European law if he believes that the UK can remain signatories to but only accept the Convention "as a useful moral code", which is neither binding nor needs to be abided by. It beggars belief that he is suggesting that we now go backwards in time and pretend we did not pass the HRA 1998. As just said David Green is ignorant of international and European law, to claim that "The convention contains no enforcement powers; there is only a procedure for “friendly settlement” among members of the Council of Europe". He needs to read the Treaty of London 1949 (Statute of the Council of Europe), to see that there are enforcement powers and tough sanctions if "friendly settlement" is not reached.

We have a Human Rights Act so I see no need for a new Bill of Rights to reaffirm the position in the constitutional settlement of 1689. However, the HRA does need to be amended and strengthened. It is ridiculous to claim that "when judges review the decisions of the government and find them unlawful, they are acting on behalf of parliament" because they are acting as part of an independent Judiciary. Equally ridiculous is the suggestion that "Above all, a bill of rights should affirm that no decision of the European court has any authority unless it has been discussed and approved by parliament". This view is contrary to the Convention which quite clearly states that the decision of the Court is final. David Green is absurdly suggesting that the UK should decide itself whether it is breaking human rights law. He is not suggesting we should live in a democracy, but is instead advocating we should live under a toalitarian regime!

Takeaway meal: golden eagle snatches lamb from hillside

Takeaway meal: golden eagle snatches lamb from hillside

The majestic golden eagle spreads its 8ft wingspan and glides over a Scottish mountainside with a bloodied lamb seemingly effortlessly grasped in its talons.

A golden eagle snatches a lamb on the Isle of Mull Photo: KETTS NEWS

By Simon Johnson 7:00AM GMT 28 Feb 2011

This extraordinary picture, taken on the Isle of Mull, is believed to be the first photograph of one of the giant birds of prey snatching livestock from farmers’ flocks.

It was taken by a birdwatcher, who did not want to be named or reveal the precise location, near Ben More, for fear the eagles’ nests would be targeted by angry hill farmers.

There are only 30 breeding pairs north of the Border and special protection areas were designated last year following outcry over the discovery of some poisoned carcasses.

“There were a few other cars parked close by and some eagles circling, possibly by an eyrie,” said the birdwatcher.

“Suddenly this massive eagle swooped into view. We could see it was carrying something beneath it and my wife, who had binoculars, thought it was a white mountain hare.

“As it got closer, I said to her, ‘That’s no hare, it’s a lamb’. It was a very unusual sight and a bit sad for the lamb, but that’s nature. It’s certainly a sight that neither of us will forget.”

The unlucky animal is likely to have been snatched from the 1,700-strong flock of Donald MacLean, who farms 10,000 acres on the island.

He said: “This is a hugely significant photograph, catching the eagle in the act. It proves eagles are carrying off lambs, evidence that farmers need to make their point.”

Victorians hunted golden eagles to extinction, but they were reintroduced to Scotland from Norway in 1975. The birds kill large prey by dropping it from a great height.

However, farmers are more concerned about a recent programme to bring back white-tailed sea eagles. It was claimed that Britain’s largest bird of prey took more than 200 lambs on one Highland peninsula in a single year.

An official study that involved the radio-tagging of 58 lambs found none was taken by a sea eagle, but its findings were dismissed by crofters.

Some snouts in the trough are more equal than others

Some snouts in the trough are more equal than others

According to this report...

Shamed MP David Chaytor moved to open jail after just 2 weeks

According to this report Eric Illsley sentenced before Chaytor is still in Wanno!

Disgraced MP Eric Illsley 'coping' in jail, says wife

The wife of former Barnsley Central MP Eric Illsley has said her husband is "coping" in prison after being jailed for a year for expenses fraud.

Illsley was sentenced earlier this month after admitting falsely claiming £14,000 for his second home.

The 55-year-old is the second former MP to be jailed for expenses offences.

His wife Dawn said he was "keeping his head down" at HMP Wandsworth, in south London, and was "paying dearly" for what he had done.

Animal pictures of the week: 25 February 2011

Animal pictures of the week: 25 February 2011

Great photos here.

Justice Secretary Rules Out Cutting Ties with Strasbourg Court

Justice Secretary Rules Out Cutting Ties with Strasbourg Court

Coalition plans to examine possibility of British Bill of Rights would put the Human Rights Act “in jeopardy” says civil liberties watchdog

By Peter Simmons, Epoch Times Staff, Created: Feb 26, 2011

Some politicians and legal experts have suggested that the Houses of Parliament are becomingly increasingly beholden to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. (Epoch Times)

Critics say they demonstrate how the human rights court in Strasbourg has gained power beyond its original remit, able to trump even the will of the British Parliament.

But although rulings like the prisoners’ right to vote might be making the headlines at present, they are simply old cases, dredged up with little attention to the details or scope of the rulings, says civil liberties watchdog Liberty.

The Justice Secretary Ken Clarke on Sunday ruled out Britain cutting ties with the European Convention on Human Rights, as some have suggested, but said that the coalition government was considering a British Bill of Rights and would press for changes to the way the Strasbourg court is run.

Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti said the coalition's plans for a Bill of Rights would put the Human Rights Act “in jeopardy”.

Two weeks ago, Parliament voted in favour of a motion that in essence said the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is overstepping the mark, and that the UK should not bend to its ruling on prisoners' rights. The Strasbourg ruling is five years old.

Last week, another ruling by the ECHR which said that those on the sex offender list should have the right to review, was brought to the fore and criticised by the government, keeping up momentum on the topic of the power of the Strasbourg court. This ruling was one year old.

Mrs Chakrabarti in her blog on Monday said that British politicians were “railing against the values and institutions that have long protected liberty and the rule of law at home”.

She dismissed the notion that the court ruling on sex offenders act carried any notion of a threat to sovereignty or the will of Parliament, describing the government's criticism as a “two-fingered salute” to the Supreme Court.

“Did you know that the Supreme Court decision has only moral and persuasive force? Yes, last week’s manufactured controversy about 'pervs and paedos' and 'unelected judges' dictating to our sainted mother of parliaments involves a 'declaration of incompatibility' under the Human Rights Act that both the Government and Parliament are completely free to ignore.”

She said that most worrying was the criticism of the European Court of Human Rights.

“It was labelled a kangaroo court for pointing out that the UK had advanced no coherent rationale for the blanket ban on prisoners voting.

“By ironic coincidence the Government announced its plan for the Protection of Freedoms Bill the next day. In two key areas covered by the Bill – retention of DNA by the police and searches under section 44 of the Terrorism Act – it is judgments of the Strasbourg court that have led to Government action.”

Her remarks chime with those made by Justice Secretary Ken Clarke in the Andrew Marr Show, risking anger from the right of his party by ruling out the possibility of withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights and also noting the age of the rulings.

Describing himself as a moderate, he said he was not from the “hanging and floggingwing of the party”.

In pointing out the age of the rulings, the Justice Secretary couldn’t resist a dig at former Justice Secretary Jack Straw, who was one of two people behind the recent parliamentary motion that defied the Strasbourg ruling on prisoners’ votes.

“For five years Jack did not denounce it, so it's a new conversion.”

Mr Clarke pointed out that the ruling on the sex offenders register was made by the British Supreme Court, not European Court, and was made a year ago.

He also noted that the ruling was accepted in Scotland “without the slightest fuss”.

“The key thing on the sex register is nobody is going to expose the public to any risk from sex offenders and so on. I mean what is unhelpful is to have the press suddenly discovering an old judgement and deciding that sex offenders are going to be let loose on the public without having to stay on the register,” he told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.

He also said there was “no question” of the government denouncing the European Convention on Human Rights. “Only the Greek colonels have ever repudiated the Convention on Human Rights,” he said.

But he did say that Britain would try to change the way the European Court of Human Rights is run during its presidency later in the year.

Mr Clarke said the coalition was exploring the idea of a British Bill of Rights.

But Mrs Chakrabarti said that Britain effectively already has a Bill of Rights: the Human Rights Act.

“The coalition’s commission exploring a new British 'Bill of Rights' whets unhealthy appetites. Some want to abandon the convention and Strasbourg system altogether," she said.

"But ironically, many would scrap the Human Rights Act, which in giving British judges jurisdiction over our freedoms, effectively repatriated power to this country. This second group of people, to whom the 'unelected judge' gibes pander, give the game away. The beef is not rule from Europe but the rule of law itself. They will never be satisfied by any credible bill of rights. Nothing good can come of a commission appeasing them and their feeding frenzy. The Human Rights Act is in jeopardy.”

Sentenced to Vote

Sentenced to Vote

Lock 'em up and throw away the key to prisoner rehabilitation

by Catherine Mousdale.

Saturday 26th February 2011, 15:15 GMT



‘It makes me physically ill even to contemplate having to give the vote to anyone who is in prison’. Such were the words of David Cameron in backing the decision of the House of Commons to oppose prisoners’ rights to democratic participation. This development sets the Government at odds with a 2005 Strasbourg ruling that declares the current UK blanket ban on convict voting incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol 1. The ensuing constitutional implications are undeniably going to be difficult to stomach, but in terms public policy, is the potential enfranchisement of the prison population really so nauseating?

Art 3 of Protocol 1 confers the right to ‘the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature’. This right may be qualified by government measures if they pursue a legitimate aim and do so in a way that strikes a proportionate balance between the right and competing public policy considerations. The Grand Chamber allowed that the relevant domestic law pursues a legitimate aim but asserted that its application is disproportionate.

The judgment points to the arbitrariness of the ban in the form MPs seek to maintain as failing to accord Article 3 appropriate weight. It objects to prisoners whose crimes are of different gravity being alike deprived of the right and also to the fact that some prisoners under custodial sentence could have received a community penalty for the same offence and retained the right to vote under the latter. The rationale underlying the disenfranchisement of ‘anyone who is in prison’ already starts to fall apart. The decision does not compel the UK to allow all prisoners to vote but makes it incredibly difficult to justify continued imposition of a blanket ban.

However, in a sense broader that that conferred by the legal phrase, does disenfranchisement of prisoners really pursue a ‘legitimate aim’? The first policy consideration advanced to the European Court by the previous government was that the measure pursues the aim of preventing crime by sanctioning civic responsibility and respect for the rule of law. This is rooted in the idea, predominant since the early 1970s, that punishment of crime is a communication between society and offender. The imposition of a deserved sanction allows society to demonstrate to an offender the gravity of his/her offence and the offender can choose to respond to the censure of society by striving to respect the rule of law thereafter.

The communication embodied in disenfranchisement is that society wishes to exclude prisoners from participation in its life. Research demonstrates the importance of community support in preventing recidivism amongst released offenders. If a released prisoner has no links in the community, no home, no job, and no support for drug and alcohol problems (s)he is more likely to revert to crime. Reinforcing a sense of being outside the local community by disallowing participation in election of the local representative surely does not incentivise offenders to participate in the order of civic responsibility upon release. It also communicates a mentality of exclusion to the general public, further weakening community support. This can only have a detrimental impact on crime rates and the aim is no longer so legitimate in light of its impotence.

The second policy consideration forwarded as a ‘legitimate aim’ of disenfranchisement is to confer extra punishment. The notion of communication is important in an ethical sense as well as having a potential impact on crime prevention. Ghandi once said that the state of a nation’s prisons is reflective of the state of its society. Disallowing prisoners the vote represents and fosters an ethos of exclusion, apposite to social cohesion.

The prison population is relatively small and during the recent debate, ex-prisoners have told reporters that they are apathetic and may not have voted whilst in prison even if they had the opportunity. Despite this, the message of exclusion conveyed by denial of the vote has practical and ethical consequences. ‘Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ has long been the rhetoric of the criminal justice system. The former part, retributive in its end, has been well tackled by successive governments. The latter part, with a holistic goal, recognising the need for investment in better social support for those affected by poverty, family breakdown, cognitive deficit and other proven causal factors, has received less systematic attention.

An accepted mentality of placing prisoners outside society makes marginalisation of their interests more easily digestible. This is unjust. Democratic participation is fundamental to the rule of law and when it is eroded without solid justification the result is injustice. It is for this reason that the attitude of the House of Commons is so unpalatable. Let us hope that David Cameron does not end up having to confer the right to vote on prisoners: we would not want him to be physically ill in such close proximity to suffering a severe bout of verbal diarrhoea.

Breaking the cycle of offending

Breaking the cycle of offending



"There must be consequences for breaking the law".

We have seen a handful of the 650 expenses fiddling MPs being prosecuted and jailed. Too few are facing the consequences for breaking the law, and too many are escaping the consequences for breaking the law. This does not inspire public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Recently the 1922 Committee called upon David Cameron to curb the power of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), to allow MPs to carry on fiddling their expenses out of the public purse unchecked. MPs have proved that they cannot be trusted not to steal. It is hypocritical to call for breaking the cycle of offending of members of the public, whilst at the same time MPs are wanting to continue their cycle of offending.

Then we have the UK's cycle of offending breaching the European Convention on Human Rights, and ignoring the European Court of Human Rights decision in Hirst v UK (No2). As the MoJ points out "There must be consequences for breaking the law", so how the UK can expect not to face consequences on 8 March when the UK goes before the Committee of Ministers in Strasbourg is beyond me. It is as though the Coalition is saying that there is one law for the masses and another for the government. In effect, that the government is above the common law.

It is time that we broke the cycle of offending by the government.

Law student jailed for internet terrorism

Law student jailed for internet terrorism

By Shenai Raif

Saturday, 26 February 2011

A law student who posted Islamic terrorist propaganda on the internet after becoming radicalised was jailed for five years yesterday.

Mohammed Gul was "pouring petrol on the fire" and his actions could have spurred others to commit acts of terror, the Old Bailey heard.

Gul, 23, of Hornchurch, Essex, who has since graduated, was found guilty of five counts of disseminating terrorist publications following a retrial at the Old Bailey.

Judge David Paget said his sentence had to be a deterrent to others and reflect the seriousness of the crime.

He told Gul: "I am in no doubt that you have become thoroughly radicalised. One can only express sympathy to your family that this has happened.

"You are an intelligent young man who had a good law degree from a good university. It is a tragedy that you have thrown it all away."

The judge praised the anti-terrorist police who, he said, "had a Herculean task" in reviewing the huge amount of material found on Gul's laptop.

It had involved the biggest review of data ever undertaken by the anti-terrorist branch of Scotland Yard and involved 30 officers over a period of six months, he said.

Comment: I find the whole idea of posting material on the internet a crime quite appalling, and think that there are genuine crimes which would have benifitted from 30 officers for 6 months!

Murderers launch campaign for freedom based on their human rights

Murderers launch campaign for freedom based on their human rights

Three murderers who were expected to die in jail have launched a campaign for freedom based on their human rights and the European Court of Human Rights has agreed to hear the cases.

By Andy Bloxham, Daily Telegraph, 12:59AM GMT 26 Feb 2011

Jeremy Bamber, Peter Moore and Douglas Vinter - who killed 11 men between them and were each given "whole life" tariffs - claim their sentences amount to "inhuman or degrading treatment" and breach their right to a fair trial.

The court's decision to hear their views is likely to anger both Parliament and the victims' families. The House of Commons is already in a battle with Europe over prisoners' rights, after it voted to maintain the ban on their voting against the orders of Brussels.

If the court, which is in Strasbourg, rules in their favour, all 41 of the prisoners serving the whole life terms would be eligible to claim for release. The list could include Ian Brady, the Moors Murderer, Rose West and Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper.

Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, told the Daily Mail: "It goes without saying that the Government will be fighting the case vigorously and defending the principle of the whole life tariff. A small number of prisoners' crimes are so appalling that judges rule that they should never become eligible for parole."

India does not oppose prisoners votes

India does not oppose prisoners votes

Prisoners’ vote: A public interest litigation was moved in the high court demanding poll booths in all correctional homes so that prisoners could vote in the upcoming Assembly elections. The state government did not oppose the petition.

David Chaytor is Spring Hill Jack!

David Chaytor is Spring Hill Jack!

Experience would suggest that there is a waiting list for those prisoners seeking to go to open prison. The riot in Ford open prison on News Year's Day resulted in 300 spaces being lost. Perhaps, somebody within NOMS can explain to me how David Chaytor was able to jump from the bottom of the waiting list to the top in just 2 weeks? It would suggest that he received preferential treatment. Obviously, some snouts in the trough are more equal than others.

I have now received a response from a Senior Officer at Spring Hill open prison. For lifers there is a 2-3 months waiting list. For determinate sentenced prisoners there is no waiting list and they go there pretty much straight away once the allocation process is completed. A problem being that IPP prisoners are taking up a disproportinate amount of spaces at Spring Hill, simply because of the back log of cases before the Parole Board and the Parole Board's lack of will to release such prisoners back into the community.

Fox lived in the Shard skyscraper at London Bridge

Fox lived in the Shard skyscraper at London Bridge

A fox has been discovered living at the top of the UK's tallest building.

Romeo has now been released on the streets of Bermondsey

The animal, named Romeo by staff, is thought to have entered the 288m (945ft) Shard building at London Bridge through the central stairwell.

It survived by eating scraps of food left by builders working on the incomplete structure.

The fox was captured and taken to Riverside Animal Centre in Wallington where it was fed and given a check-up.

Ted Burden, the centre's founder, said: "We explained to him that if foxes were meant to be 72 storeys off the ground, they would have evolved wings.

"We think he got the message and, as we released him back on to the streets of Bermondsey shortly after midnight on Sunday, he glanced at the Shard and then trotted off in the other direction."

'Resourceful little chap'

Barrie Hargrove, cabinet member for transport, environment and recycling at Southwark Council, said: "Romeo has certainly been on a bit of a jaunt and proved rather elusive.

"But I'm glad our pest control officers were able to help out.

"He's obviously a resourceful little chap, but I'm sure he's glad the adventure is over and hopefully he'll steer well clear of skyscrapers in the future."

The Shard overtook Canary Wharf as the UK's highest building last year.

The fox was found on the 72nd floor of the 80-storey building

Tovey and others wronlgy decided

Tovey and others wronlgy decided

Langstaff J, has erred in law.

Unlike the media and politicians who attack a court judgment on grounds other than law, I stick to the law when criticising a judgment.

I contend that the HRA 1998 is incompatible with the Convention, for example, Articles 1 and 13 guaranteeing everyone is entitled to their human rights under the Convention, and an effective remedy before a national authority are absent.

According to Alex Bailin QC, Matrix Chambers, at the ALBA 8th Annual Human Rights Act Seminar, 5 Oct 2010:

“The worst example of the dialogue is probably the response to the ECtHR GC decision in Hirst v UK (No.2) (2006) 42 EHRR 41 which held that the blanket ban on prisoners’ voting is disproportionate. Until last month (when the Deputy PM announced that the government will reconsider the ban, after the Council of Europe had given the UK a 3-month ultimatum), the government had effectively ignored the ECtHR ruling for over 5 years. If that state of affairs reigned supreme then the HRA would be, frankly, toothless” (Source).

The intent of Parliament in passing the HRA 1998 was that citizens would not have to go to Strasbourg, to enforce their human rights, and also save the UK from the embarrassment of adverse judgments before the ECtHR. Clearly, my High Court application failed in this respect. This is because Kennedy LJ, abdicated responsibility and deferred to Parliament.

“However, following the decision of the Divisional Court in the present case, the Supreme Court on 31 October 2002 in Sauvé v. the Attorney General of Canada (No. 2) held by five votes to four that section 51(e) of the Canada Elections Act 1985, which denied the right to vote to every person imprisoned in a correctional institution serving a sentence of two years or more, was unconstitutional as infringing Articles 1 and 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

“1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

“3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.”

36. The majority opinion given by McLachlin C.J. considered that the right to vote was fundamental to their democracy and the rule of law and could not be lightly set aside. Limits on it required not deference, but careful examination. The majority found that the Government had failed to identify particular problems that required denying the right to vote and that the measure did not satisfy the proportionality test, in particular as the Government had failed to establish a rational connection between the denial of the right to vote and its stated objectives” (Hirst v UK (No2).

It was a simple task for Kennedy LJ, to perform all he had to do was declare s.3 of ROPA 1983 to be incompatible with Article 3 of the First Protocol of the Convention. By not doing his job it meant that he made a mockery of the separation of powers doctrine. He failed to provide the necessary balance and checks on abuse of power by Parliament, and the Executive. Kennedy LJ, stated if s.3 of ROPA 1983 could withstand the challenge from Article 3 of the First Protocol, then than was the end of the matter. We now know that it could not withstand the challenge. And that should have been it.

Criticism can be levelled at the Council of Europe for the way that the Court decisions are handed over to politicians to supervise execution of the judgments. What is needed is direct effect as with EU law and the ECJ decisions.

The Interlaken Conference in February 2010 looked at the challenge faced by the Court by its 120,000 back log of cases, many repeat applications whereby Member States had not implemented the Court decisions. The Court said it felt its authority was being threatened. It was decided that the Court and the Council of Europe should have new powers under the Lisbon Treaty. It was decided that the subsidiarity principle from EU law should apply to Member States. This requires public authorities to remedy breaches of human rights following the Court decisions. It is all covered in the Interlaken Declaration, signed by the then Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, and when laid before Parliament it is binding on the UK.

It was also decided that Human Rights would assume Higher Law status. This means that sovereignty of Parliament has to take 3rd place, because sovereignty of the people takes 2nd place.

Langstaff J, was relying upon Chester. However, Chester 1 and 2 were decided wrongly.

Although s.6(1) of the HRA 1998 was carefully drafted to allow the Secretary of State for Justice to get off the legal hook. It all hinges on if he could not have done anything else, then s.3 of ROPA 1983 and supremacy of Parliament stand. However, the Secretary of State for Justice could have acted otherwise. For example, he has the power to make a remedial order under s.10 of the HRA 1998 and amend s.3 of ROPA 1983 and lay it before Parliament.

I feel a legal challenge coming on in either the CofA or UK Supreme Court.

A Russian Resolution for greater media freedom?

A Russian Resolution for greater media freedom?

The European Audiovisual Observatory publishes new IRIS plus report

Press Release

Strasbourg, 24 February 2011

A landmark decision was taken concerning Russian media law on the 15th of June last year. Resolution No. 16 “On the Judicial Practice Related to the Statute of the Russian Federation ‘On the Mass Media’” was adopted in order to serve as a framework of guidelines for the application of the principle legal instrument regulating the media in Russia, the Statute on the Mass Media of 1991, in the light of a rapidly changing media landscape. For example, the Resolution offers instructions to Russian courts on how to apply the Statute to digital and Internet based services. In short, the recently adopted Resolution aims at filling in the gaps of a legal instrument which is now 20 years old and was badly in need of a facelift. The European Audiovisual Observatory, part of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, has just published a thorough analysis of Resolution No. 16 and its consequences for media legislation:

A landmark for mass media in Russia

The leading article by Andrei Richter of the Moscow Media Law and Policy Centre is tellingly entitled “Russia’s modern approach to media law”. Richter opens by underlining two major aspects of progress brought about by the new Resolution. The text enshrines the principle that “freedom to express opinions and views and the freedom of mass information are the foundations for developing a modern society and a democratic state”. From the outset, therefore, a solid statement in favour of the freedom of the mass media is made.

The second aspect concerns the often thorny subject of censorship. According to the new Resolution, states officials do have the right to demand prior approval of interviews, for example, when published by journalists. However, a journalist’s refusal to provide the transcript for such approval is not a punishable act. The concrete consequence of this new element is that editorial offices may now edit interviews independently with impunity. Further protection of editors and journalists is afforded by the fact that interviews with representatives of state bodies now have a legal nature equal to that of an official response. Before the Resolution the practice of holding journalists accountable for the content of interviews was, according to Richter, “quite common”.

In terms of the regulation of online media, the new Resolution makes it clear that websites are not subject to mandatory registration as they would be if considered as mass media outlets. However, voluntary registration is possible and confers upon the authors the status of journalists with all the rights and privileges foreseen by the Statute on Mass Media. Furthermore, the Russian internet registration authority cannot, under the new Resolution, refuse registration of a website as a mass media outlet if requested. Of course, registration of a website then carries with it the same editorial responsibility as registered journalists. Further clarification is provided by the stipulation that disseminating mass information on line does not require a broadcasting licence, as only the use of technical means such as over-the-air, wire or cable makes such a licence necessary.

Further guarantees for access to information are provided by the Resolution through its stipulation that “information enquiry by the editorial office of a mass medium […] is a legal means to seek information on the activities of state bodies … and municipal organisations (commercial and non-commercial)…”. The novelty here is that commercial organisations were previously exempt from the obligation to provide information due to commercial secrecy. “Additional possibilities of seeking and obtaining information” are also accorded by the Resolution to state accredited journalists.

Richter goes on to explore areas of mass media activity affected by the Resolution such as the protection of journalists’ privileges, the protection of confidential sources, and the abuse of the freedom of mass media. He concludes the leading article by underlining that this recently adopted Resolution “allows Russian media to engage in socially responsible journalism without being threatened by illegal pressure in the courtroom, extreme demands by state bodies and excessive bureaucratic procedures.” As such, it surely represents a positive step towards press and media freedom in Russia.

The related reporting section of this new publication provides country by country articles on various court cases involving the European Convention on Human Rights, given the thematic link between Article 10 of this convention on freedom of expression and the theme of the lead article on Russian media legislation. The final “zoom” section provides an extremely valuable translation (English, French or German) of Resolution No. 16 as an additional reference document.

A must-have report on the latest developments in Russian legislation on mass media.

Tom Zwart: How David Cameron could resolve his argument with the ECHR over votes for prisoners

Tom Zwart: How David Cameron could resolve his argument with the ECHR over votes for prisoners

Tom Zwart is a professor of human rights at the School of Law of Utrecht University and a board member of the Telders Foundation, a Dutch think-tank devoted to liberty, democracy and the Rule of Law.



The fact that, as a result of its judgment on the right to vote for prisoners, the European Court of Human Rights has clashed with public opinion in Britain and political sentiment in Westminster is hardly surprising. The judges used to live in their countries of origin, while meeting each other only periodically to discuss the cases. Now they are all permanently based in Strasbourg, which makes it difficult for them to keep in touch with reality on the ground. They have exchanged the occasional chat with the grocer on the corner for conversations with human rights interest groups and academics, which tend to uncritically accept their judgments.

Consequently, the Court has felt encouraged to add rights to the European Convention on Human Rights which clearly are not there - like the right to be protected against environmental pollution. Recently, in a case on the presence of crucifixes in Italian class rooms, the Court read a right not to be exposed to such religious symbols in a provision that allows parents to have their children educated in accordance with their own religious beliefs.

The Court has also relaxed its rules of evidence in a remarkable manner. In a recent case, an asylum seeker claimed to have been submitted to inhuman and degrading treatment in Greece. The Court admitted that the applicant had failed to substantiate his allegations with proof. It nevertheless accepted them as being true, because reports of the High Commissioner for Refugees and organisations like Amnesty International indicated that the treatment of asylum seekers in Greece was poor. But these reports were of a very general nature and they did not contain any evidence related to the individual case of the applicant. This outcome is the more striking since the Court does not allow national courts and juries to rely on hearsay evidence.
The Court has also become rather cavalier with regard to its own precedents. In a recent case, Belgium was convicted for sending an asylum seeker back to Greece under the Dublin regulation. In so doing, Belgium had relied on a judgment, handed down only eight months before, in which the Court had stated that it was safe to do so. This, while the Court expects all judgments to be implemented by every country, including those in which it was not a party.

It is now up to Prime Minister and his legal advisers to find middle ground between the duty, imposed by the Court, to accord voting rights to at least part of the prison population and the stern rebuke by the House of Commons. Although this is quite a challenge, there is a way in which David Cameron can solve his prisoner’s dilemma.

He can take his case to the Committee of Ministers, the executive body of the Council of Europe, of which the Government is a member. Through its resolutions the Committee can pronounce itself on the scope and meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights. Since the Committee of Ministers is the authoritative voice of the states party to the Convention, these resolutions carry much weight. Under the law of treaties they should even be regarded as informal amendments to the Convention, which ought to trump any interpretation put on it by the European Court of Human Rights.

If the Prime Minister were able to persuade his colleagues on the Committee to water down the duty to give prisoners the right to vote - at least as far as the UK is concerned - he would be able to accommodate the Commons' majority while at the same time playing by the Strasbourg rules. He would also breathe new life into the constitutional arrangement under which the Committee of Ministers acts as a countervailing power to the Court.

The Court, of course, will also gain from such action. It will be able to resume its more modest and realistic role, from which all people living in the member states of the Council of Europe, including those in Britain, have benefited in the past.

Dear Richard Branson (supporter of the childkiller McCanns)

Dear Richard Branson (supporter of the childkiller McCanns)

Go fuck yourself!

"Here's your Virgin Mobile bill. This month's (January) balance is: £90.64".

"Here's your Virgin Mobile bill. This month's (February) balance is: £642.16"!

Prisoner votes campaigner John Hirst hits out at Runcorn MP Graham Evans

Prisoner votes campaigner John Hirst hits out at Runcorn MP Graham Evans

Feb 24 2011 by Mark Smith, Runcorn and Widnes Weekly News

THE convicted axe killer turned rights campaigner who sparked the furore over prisoners’ votes has criticised Runcorn MP Graham Evans.

The Weekly News reported last week how Mr Evans was among 234 MPs to vote against lifting the blanket ban on giving prisoners a say in the electoral process, a ban which the European Court of Human Rights previously declared to be illegal.

He told the Weekly News he was ‘deeply disturbed’ by the moves of European judges to have the ban lifted.

And in a direct response to the article, John Hirst – the man who first took the Government to court over the issue of prisoners’ rights – blasted Mr Evans’s stance.

Speaking exclusively to the Weekly News he said: “I am deeply disturbed that Runcorn MP Graham Evans is in favour of supporting maintaining this illegal practice.

“Whatever happened to the party of law and order? It would now appear that the Tories have become the party of lawlessness and disorder!”

Mr Hirst was sentenced to 15 years in 1979 for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility after he hacked his 69-year-old landlady to death.

He was released in 2004 after serving 10 years longer than his original sentence.

He added: “It is not for him (Mr Evans) to decide this issue because the UK has already argued this position, in my case, in March 2004 and on the appeal in 2005, and lost the argument in the highest court in Europe.

“So, by his going on about the past just shows how out of touch he is with reality. “Using his own logic of those who break the law should not vote, why did he then hypocritically exercise his vote in the Commons motion and debate?”

Mr Hirst also warned the taxpayer would foot the bill for Britain’s refusal to lift the ban as serving prisoners sought to take legal action.

He said: “If the Government had sought to save the taxpayers forking out compensation payments to prisoners, then this should have happened before the 2009 European election and 2010 General Election because the present bill stands at £135m.

“If those prisoners in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and England in the AV (alternative vote) referendum do not get to vote in May this year then the bill will be £270m.”

Human rights abuser David Cameron condemns human rights abuser Gaddafi

Human rights abuser David Cameron condemns human rights abuser Gaddafi



David Cameron: "I would condemn human rights abuses and the repression by governments against their people wherever they happen, Libya included, and all our minds at the moment are focused on that country and quite rightly so".

Dartford MP Gareth Johnson at Prime Minister’s Questions:"Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it would be wrong for convicted prisoners to be able to vote as suggested by the European Court of Human Rights and that the incarceration of convicted prisoners should mean there is a loss of rights for the individual and that includes the right to vote?"

David Cameron: "I completely agree… it makes me physically ill to contemplate giving the vote to prisoners. They should lose some rights including the right to vote".

So, David Cameron condemns human rights abuse when committed by others but thinks it is ok to abuse human rights himself. This kind of double standards is hypocritical in anybody. In a Prime Minister, it is totally unacceptable.

Prison votes: Almost 200 inmates cast ballots

Prison votes: Almost 200 inmates cast ballots

KITTY HOLLAND

The Irish Times - Thursday, February 24, 2011

ALMOST 200 prisoners around the State have cast their votes in the general election. All 4,500 prisoners have the right to vote, though just 191 registered for this election. They cast their votes by postal ballot last weekend for the constituencies of their home address.

At Wheatfield Prison in west Dublin, 64 of the 676 prisoners registered to vote. “Every one of them voted,” said assistant chief prison officer Kevin O’Neill.

A polling station was set up in one of the governor’s interview rooms and voters entered individually. Having voted in a polling booth, they signed a cover letter, also signed by the governor, before the ballot and letter were sealed in an envelope and placed in a ballot box. The votes were sent to returning officers on Monday.

“We have posters up all over the prison telling prisoners it’s their constitutional right to vote,” said Mr O’Neill. “There have been quite a few lively debates about politics. They watch the news and the political programmes, so they are very tuned in.

“I do think it’s important for prisoners to vote. It gives them a sense of responsibility and ownership back into their lives. When the first fella had cast his vote on Saturday, governor [Frances] Daly congratulated him and you could see the glow in him. You’d hope that would tip them a bit into a sense of their own responsibility to their communities.”

Among those who voted last weekend was Peter (28), from Cork, who is halfway through a six-year sentence. “It was good to vote. I voted before I was in here all right. My constituency is Cork South Central. My family would always have been out for Fianna Fáil so I gave Micheál Martin my number one.

“The issues for me would be social stuff, like how they’re cutting down on everything and the fact there’s nothing for teenagers to do in my area. Growing up, there was nothing for young fellas to do. And I suppose jobs.”

Anthony (29), from Ballymun, Dublin, is serving seven years.

“I’d never voted before this, never really took any interest. I voted because of the way the country is going. I’d be watching it on the news. I voted for the Labour Party. I think everyone should have the right to vote.”

Mr O’Neill said he expected more prisoners to register for the next vote – probably the local elections in 2014, if not in a referendum before then.

Dear MPs prisoners will vote by hook or by crook!

Dear MPs prisoners will vote by hook or by crook!

Prisoners and Votes by Lisa



I have been following all the news on prisoners votes. I have a partner in prison as you may all know because I contribute quite a lot to your blog. If the Government want to screw over the prisoners votes, then why don't we unite as prisoners families and put the vote in for them? I have never voted in my life before, and those who have a loved one inside who haven't voted before too, should consider doing it? How many extra votes would go in if that was the case? This isn't a long shot, it can be done quite easily. Could I ask Prisoners families Voices if I could promote this via their blog and Facebook page please and urge families to get behind their loved ones regarding this important issue?

I Will Vote For My Husband by Anon (Via Facebook)

Hi. I have just seen your pledge for prisoners families to vote on facebook. I am all up for it. My partner is innocent and currently going through an appeal. So on behalf of him, I will vote and so will his relatives too! I will spread the word at the vistors centre where I go. I have voted a few times in the past but haven't bothered for a good few years. But I am in it this round for sure!

My Prisoner Will Vote by Jackie Lane

I am ashamed to say that I have never voted. But the way I have been treated by the Government for being an innocent family member of a UK prisoner - they can bank on my vote this time. I am not blowing my own trumpet, but where I live, I am very well respected because I live in quite a deprived area and I am known to fight prisoners families corners. Especially children that are bullied because they have a Daddy in prison. I am not saying that they respect my hubby, that would be wrong to say, because he has done wrong and he is in prison at the end of the day. But they respect me for the sheer shit I have had to put up with by being his partner.
therefore, tommorow, I will call on my community and ask them to vote. Most of them have never voted in their lifes, but they will now and I'll even give them a lift to the voting station!
I have been bounced from pillar to post by The Prison Service who have shipped my hubby out God knows how many times. So what I am saying is. To Lisa. I will be spreading the word and you have my word on it. Prisoners families need to make a stand. Whether they think prisoners votes is right or wrong, do it for the sake of yourselves and VOTE! Haven't the British Government pissed families around for long enough now?

Mystery of the vanishing written evidence

Mystery of the vanishing written evidence

Now you see it before I contacted the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and told them they had been had by Private Eye...

Now you don't...

Political and Constitutional Reform Committee - Written Evidence

CONTENTS: Prisoner Voting

On this page is the written evidence received and accepted by the Committee as evidence for the ongoing inquiry into Constitutional Implications of the Cabinet Manual. The written evidence is available as a consolidated pdf version and as individual html files.

Written evidence - PDF Version PDF

HTML Version:
Prison Reform Trust (PVR 01)

AIRE Centre (PVR 02)

John Hirst (PVR 03)

John Hirst - Supplementary (PVR 03a)

Nat Rothschild and Saif Gaddafi in clandestine link

Nat Rothschild and Saif Gaddafi in clandestine link

Nat Rothschild
Saif Gaddafi

Fuck Schillings!

UPDATE:

Had a visit from IP Address 217.33.207.# (Schillings)

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 is incompatible with the HRA 1998

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 is incompatible with the HRA 1998

2Entitlement to vote in the referendum

(1)Those entitled to vote in the referendum are—

(a)the persons who, on the date of the referendum, would be entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency, and

(b)the persons who, on that date, are disqualified by reason of being peers from voting as electors at parliamentary elections but—

(i)would be entitled to vote as electors at a local government election in any electoral area in Great Britain,

(ii)would be entitled to vote as electors at a local election in any district electoral area in Northern Ireland, or

(iii)would be entitled to vote as electors at a European Parliamentary election in any electoral region by virtue of section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1985 (peers resident outside the United Kingdom).

(2)In subsection (1)(b)(i) “local government election” includes a municipal election in the City of London (that is, an election to the office of mayor, alderman, common councilman or sheriff and also the election of any officer elected by the mayor, aldermen and liverymen in common hall).

Comment:

11. We regret the fact that this Bill has not been subject to either pre-legislative scrutiny, or to prior public consultation.

12. In general, we regard it as a matter of principle that proposals for major constitutional reform should be subject to prior public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. We recognise that there may exceptionally be good reasons for departing from this principle, but the perils of doing so are well illustrated in the present Bill. The case for proceeding rapidly with one Part of this Bill is far stronger than for the other.

Because s.2(1) of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 has not taken into account Article 3 of the First Protocol of the Convention, it is arguable that it is not Convention compliant.

I feel a challenge coming on. I understand that prisoners are waiting for the forms to be sent by a firm of solicitors, Jackson & Canter LLP, in Liverpool.

Update: I am unable to find a copy of any compatibility statement being made in relation to the above Act...

Former MP Jim Devine declared bankrupt

Former MP Jim Devine declared bankrupt

Former Labour MP Jim Devine has been formally declared bankrupt following a hearing at Livingston Sheriff Court.

Jim Devine was found guilty of dishonestly claiming £8,385 of expenses earlier this month

Mr Devine had been unable to pay his former office manager Marion Kinley £35,000 for unfair dismissal.

An earlier employment tribunal heard how he bullied Miss Kinley and made up stories to justify firing her.

The former MP for Livingston is also awaiting sentence after being convicted of defrauding the taxpayer in the MPs' expenses scandal.

Earlier this month Mr Devine was found guilty of dishonestly claiming £8,385 of expenses by using false invoices for cleaning and printing work.

The 57-year-old was found guilty on 10 February on two counts but cleared of a third count, relating to £360.

Sentencing is next month. The maximum jail term is seven years.

Mr Devine was MP for the West Lothian constituency from 2005 to 2010 when he was barred by Labour from standing at the general election because of allegations over his expenses.

Comment: Cannot he pay what he owes from his resettlement allowance paid to corrupt MPs who have left the Commons since the expenses scandal?

Colin Hatch, child sex strangler, killed in prison cell

Colin Hatch, child sex strangler, killed in prison cell

Another inmate arrested as murder suspect after death of serial sex offender who murdered Sean Williams, 7, in 1994

Colin Hatch in a police photograph from 1994. The killer of Sean Williams has been found dead in prison - police have arrested another inmate as a murder suspect. Photograph: Press Association

Police are investigating as murder the death of Colin Hatch, one of Britain's most notorious child sex killers, in his cell at a high security jail.

Staff at Full Sutton prison near York said the 38-year-old had died after an "incident".

Humberside police have arrested another inmate and launched a criminal investigation.

A police spokesman said: "A 38-year-old male prisoner died in the incident. A 35-year-old male prisoner has been arrested on suspicion of murder. Humberside police are working with the prison service and investigating the incident."

Hatch was given a life term in 1994 after he murdered a seven-year-old boy while on parole for a previous child sex attack. Sentencing him at the Old Bailey, Judge Nina Lowry referred to a series of other assaults and said that it was not possible to envisage a time when the "highly dangerous" paedophile might be released safely.

She told him: "As of today life imprisonment should mean what it says. In my judgment you should never be released back into the community while there remains the slightest danger you will reoffend."

Hatch, who was 21 and jobless at the time, smirked after the jury convicted him of murder. He had been jailed for three years in 1992 for choking an eight-year-old until he almost lost consciousness in a sexual attack.

The judge in that case sentenced him to three years, the maximum permitted under the law. It was suggested that he should be admitted to Broadmoor after evidence of a string of attacks on boys since he was 15, but medical staff at the secure hospital did not consider that he was dangerous enough.

The body of Hatch's murder victim, Sean Williams, was found wrapped in bin liners and dumped in a lift at the tower block in Finchley, north London, where Hatch lived at the time. The boy's parents, Lynn and John Williams, criticised the parole board, probation service and doctors who treated Hatch in prison. After his conviction they said: "Never again must a family have to suffer this experience and never again must Colin Hatch be released back into our community."

Detective Superintendent Duncan Macrae, who led the murder inquiry, called Hatch "a frighteningly cunning criminal who had pulled the wool over the eyes of the authorities and would kill again if he was ever released."

Two days ago three prisoners on life sentences were jailed for a vicious knife attack on a Serbian war criminal at Wakefield high security prison, 30 miles from Full Sutton.

Expenses fiddling Brian Binley MP criticises European Court of Human Rights

Expenses fiddling Brian Binley MP criticises European Court of Human Rights

MPs' expenses: Tory claims £57,000 to rent flat from own company

A Conservative MP broke parliamentary rules by claiming more than £50,000 in taxpayer-funded expenses to rent a flat from his own company.

Brian Binley rented a flat from his own company

Brian Binley: Those who are blindly defending the European Court of Human Rights are only aiding its demise

Brian Binley is Conservative MP for Northampton South and a UK delegate to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. After the House of Commons voted in defiance of the ECHR ruling on giving the vote to prisoners, Christos Pourgourides - a Cypriot who chairs the Council of Europe's Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights - was quoted as saying that he had hoped that "the Parliament of one of Europe’s oldest democracies - regarded as playing a leading role in protecting Human Rights - would have encouraged the United Kingdom to honour its international obligations". Here Brian Binley responds to him in the form of an open letter.

Dear Mr. Pourgourides,

I am sure I don’t need to remind you of the case of Mr Imad Al Khawaya, a British Medical Consultant, who was convicted in a British Court of assaulting two of his patients whilst they were under the influence of hypnosis some six years ago.

One of his victims, who suffered from multiple sclerosis and thereafter committed suicide before the trial, had given testimony to a legal officer which was properly allowed to be submitted to the Court as evidence.

The disgraced doctor thereafter appealed to the European Court of Human Rights who ruled that his human rights had been violated because he had not been able to cross examine the victim who had died and he was duly awarded compensation.

No wonder the remaining victim asked “where are my human rights?”

I could quote many other equally farcical judgements which have not only brought the Court into disrepute in the UK but across Western Europe but I am sure you are well aware of them.

Many of Britain’s most eminent jurists are now questioning the credibility of the Court.

The former Law Lord, Lord Hoffman, who has been widely quoted on the issue, has lately argued that the Court seems to be “laying down a federal law of Europe.”

Lord Phillips, head of our newly created Supreme Court, warned that Strasbourg faced defiance of its ruling’s unless it reconsidered some of them and Lord Hope added “we won’t lie down in front of what they tell us.”

Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, said it would be wrong for the Court to be given precedence over Britain’s own courts.

These are serious lawyers voicing serious concerns and I could quote many more. You would do well to take them seriously yourself not least because you clearly value the efficacy of our institutions as your comments suggest. Consequently, to do otherwise would be illogical.

But the real concern doesn’t spring from the uttering’s of politicians or lawyers. It resounds in the voice of the people who are beginning to express distaste every time the ECHR hits the headlines and that concern doesn’t only relate to the Court but to the wider European institutions.

The foolishness of the Court regarding its seemingly apparent wish to micro-manage all law vaguely related to Human Rights without thought for national practices or traditions is potentially damaging to the harmony of the E.U. itself.

The writers of the Convention, way back in the 1940s, would have been horrified to learn of the extent to which the Court now feels it right to dabble in local matters and would be equally concerned at the way it seems to turn justice on its head and change perpetrators into victims.

The Convention was initially designed to ensure that the abhorrent abuses of European Dictators of the twentieth century would never be inflicted upon our peoples again and I am sure we all pay tribute to the Court for the work it has done in that respect over the years.

However, it’s time we paid heed to the expressions of the people themselves who are beginning to feel a little unnerved at the direction of travel the Court is now taking and the interpretations it is sometimes delivering.

It’s about time we recognised that the Court isn’t a perfect body above sanction but a Court of Law which operates with the assent of the people and not in spite of them.

Of course the ECHR plays an important role within British and European jurisprudence.

Of course its projection and protection of Human Rights is vital to our social wellbeing.

But, equally, the peoples' representatives need to review and to fine tune the ECHR from time to time as they would with any other institution.

Perhaps the time has come to do just that whilst at the same time understanding that blind adherence to a faltering structure simply aids its demise. I am certain none of us want that point to be reached. Do we?

Brian Binley MP
UK Delegate of the Council of Europe

Dear Mr Binley

I am sure I don't need to remind you that you broke parliamentary rules by claiming £57,000 in taxpayer-funded expenses to rent a flat from your own company.

I could quote many other examples of dishonest MPs in the UK, which has led to Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, to state that Parliament has lost the moral authority to govern.

You may recall that in Hirst v UK (No2) it had been argued that convicted prisoners by committing their crimes and a custodial sentence being imposed that they had lost the moral authority to the vote. However, moral authority has never been a criterion for the franchise in the UK. Perhaps, you could enlighten me as to where is the moral authority to fiddle taxpayer-funded expenses?

As a result of the UK failing to fully comply with the Hirst v UK (No2) decision in over 5 years, there are now 75,000 convicted prisoners asking "Where are our human rights?".

With the UK's credibility in tatters throughout Europe, it is a bit rich that some of the guilty UK jurists are now questioning the ECtHR instead of ensuring that the UK fully complies with its obligations under the Convention.

It is illogical to claim sovereignty of the UK when this was surrendered for the common good of the Council of Europe when the UK signed up to the Convention.

It is being claimed that there is a public distate for the ECtHR decisions in the UK, however, this distaste has been expressed by the extreme right wing tabloids and some MPs, and not the public who's distaste still appears to be for the expenses scandal.

If Brian Binley MP took the time to read the Human Rights Act 1998, he will see that it quite clearly states that anyone who's human rights are abused by a public authority is a victim, therefore, to try to blame the ECtHR for making perpetrators into victims is a misconception.

As Brian Binley MP points out "The Convention was initially designed to ensure that the abhorrent abuses of European Dictators of the twentieth century would never be inflicted upon our peoples again", which is why the ECtHR has recently warned David Cameron that he is beginning to act like a Greek Military Dictator from the 1960s when Greece withdrew from the Convention.

Brian Binley MP tries to hide his personal attack upon the ECtHR as "the expressions of the people themselves who are beginning to feel a little unnerved at the direction of travel the Court is now taking and the interpretations it is sometimes delivering". However, if Brian Binley MP took the time to read Hirst v UK (No2) he will see that the case is the Individual v the State and that public opinion is not a feature of the case and was rightly excluded by the Court. The guilty parties in the case are the Executive, Parliament and the Judiciary (the 3 arms of the State within the UK) and not the public.

The Court operates with the assent of the 800m citizens in Europe, and cannot face sanction by a rogue or pariah State, such as the UK, failing to honour its obligations under the Convention. The Court and the Council of Europe and not the UK Parliament are the representatives of the people in Europe. Sovereignty of Parliament is at odds with the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people. Therefore, Parliament has no power to interfere with the Court's jurisdiction at any time let alone from time to time as claimed by Brian Binley MP.

The Court rejects the UK's challenge to its jurisdiction, and insists that the UK honours its obligations and fully complies with the Convention and Court decisions including giving all convicted prisoners the vote.