Here is the weather forecast
It's been a coldish Summer, and a cold Winter is expected.
This summer has been the UK's coolest since 1993, provisional Met Office figures indicate...During the last few years the run of poor summers has coincided with colder weather during the winter months.
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.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Britain should be proud of the Human Rights Act – and protect it
Britain should be proud of the Human Rights Act – and protect it
This important legislation embodies British values, not submission to Europe
Geoffrey Bindman
guardian.co.uk, Monday 29 August 2011 18.59 BST
Nick Clegg has at last delivered an effective rebuttal of a series of intemperate attacks on the Human Rights Act made by the prime minister (Do not trash the rights act, 26 August). Too often they have been the product of simple factual errors and misunderstandings.
As you reported, in his speech this month David Cameron said that he wanted "a fightback against the wrongheaded ideas, bureaucratic nonsense, and destructive culture" that led to the riots, including "twisting and misrepresenting of human rights in a way that has undermined personal responsibility" (UK riots: Cameron and Miliband go head to head in riot aftermath, 15 August). Unfortunately the misrepresentation has often been his.
He has twice wrongly blamed the act for judicial decisions of which he disapproved. In both cases deportation of criminally convicted foreign nationals was refused by the court. Aso Mohammed Ibrahim was allowed to remain in the UK with his English wife and children because the Home Office had waited six years after his sentence before seeking to deport him. The other case was that of Learco Chindamo, the notorious killer of the headmaster Philip Lawrence. Many would have welcomed his deportation but, as the judge made clear, it was an EU directive that prevented it, not the Human Rights Act.
Those who brief Cameron are far too ready to take their cue from tabloid newspapers. The Daily Mirror headed its comment on Chindamo "Human rights are all wrong". Ludicrous fictions have been peddled by other papers. Clegg mentions the Sun's claim that police were forced by the act to offer Kentucky Fried Chicken to a burglar on a roof. More seriously it was falsely claimed that the act prohibits the police from displaying "wanted" posters for dangerous criminals, and that it required the premature release of a violent rapist.
What underlies the tabloid hostility is the perception that the Human Rights Act is a symbol of European domination, because it infiltrates the European human rights convention into our domestic law. This ignores – as Clegg points out – the British origin of the convention. It was a Tory lord chancellor, Maxwell Fyfe, who played the key role in drafting it. Winston Churchill was its strong supporter. He knew it embodied traditional British values. It is therefore puzzling that the act does not appeal to progressive Conservatives like Cameron. Human rights are no more than the minimum safeguards of personal freedom and dignity. They have been our gift to Europe and not the other way round.
Of course the act could be improved and, as Clegg suggests, could be added to by protecting other rights such as jury trial. The commission Cameron set up to examine the creation of a British bill of rights could do useful work in promoting public appreciation of its values and, to use his words, "get a grip on the misrepresentation of human rights". But the act must stay. It protects the weak and the vulnerable, and, as Clegg says, it sends a powerful message to the rest of the world about what we stand for. We have a proud record.
This important legislation embodies British values, not submission to Europe
Geoffrey Bindman
guardian.co.uk, Monday 29 August 2011 18.59 BST
Nick Clegg has at last delivered an effective rebuttal of a series of intemperate attacks on the Human Rights Act made by the prime minister (Do not trash the rights act, 26 August). Too often they have been the product of simple factual errors and misunderstandings.
As you reported, in his speech this month David Cameron said that he wanted "a fightback against the wrongheaded ideas, bureaucratic nonsense, and destructive culture" that led to the riots, including "twisting and misrepresenting of human rights in a way that has undermined personal responsibility" (UK riots: Cameron and Miliband go head to head in riot aftermath, 15 August). Unfortunately the misrepresentation has often been his.
He has twice wrongly blamed the act for judicial decisions of which he disapproved. In both cases deportation of criminally convicted foreign nationals was refused by the court. Aso Mohammed Ibrahim was allowed to remain in the UK with his English wife and children because the Home Office had waited six years after his sentence before seeking to deport him. The other case was that of Learco Chindamo, the notorious killer of the headmaster Philip Lawrence. Many would have welcomed his deportation but, as the judge made clear, it was an EU directive that prevented it, not the Human Rights Act.
Those who brief Cameron are far too ready to take their cue from tabloid newspapers. The Daily Mirror headed its comment on Chindamo "Human rights are all wrong". Ludicrous fictions have been peddled by other papers. Clegg mentions the Sun's claim that police were forced by the act to offer Kentucky Fried Chicken to a burglar on a roof. More seriously it was falsely claimed that the act prohibits the police from displaying "wanted" posters for dangerous criminals, and that it required the premature release of a violent rapist.
What underlies the tabloid hostility is the perception that the Human Rights Act is a symbol of European domination, because it infiltrates the European human rights convention into our domestic law. This ignores – as Clegg points out – the British origin of the convention. It was a Tory lord chancellor, Maxwell Fyfe, who played the key role in drafting it. Winston Churchill was its strong supporter. He knew it embodied traditional British values. It is therefore puzzling that the act does not appeal to progressive Conservatives like Cameron. Human rights are no more than the minimum safeguards of personal freedom and dignity. They have been our gift to Europe and not the other way round.
Of course the act could be improved and, as Clegg suggests, could be added to by protecting other rights such as jury trial. The commission Cameron set up to examine the creation of a British bill of rights could do useful work in promoting public appreciation of its values and, to use his words, "get a grip on the misrepresentation of human rights". But the act must stay. It protects the weak and the vulnerable, and, as Clegg says, it sends a powerful message to the rest of the world about what we stand for. We have a proud record.
Tories benefit from prisoners votes
Tories benefit from prisoners votes
Harper Tories most popular choice of incarcerated individuals
By Andy Radia | Canada Politics – 11 hours ago
As strange as it sounds, those who have been convicted of a criminal activity voted in large numbers for the "tough-on-crime" Harper Conservatives in the last election.
A story in the Ottawa Citizen reported more than 17,000 incarcerated citizens cast ballots for the May 2 election, and of those 46 per cent voted for the Conservatives, 29 per cent for the Liberals and just 15 per cent for the New Democrats.
In Canada, prisoners were granted the right to vote in 2002 when the Supreme Court ruled disenfranchising incarcerated electors violated Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In this election, voter turnout in the prison population increased by 27 per cent compared to only a 2.5 per cent increase in the general population.
Ironically, throughout the campaign one of the Conservative party's key planks was its tough-on-crime legislation.
The Tories' omnibus crime bill, expected to be introduced this fall, is expected to include legislation to build more prisons and to mandate minimum sentences for drug and sex crimes.
It will also toughen bail requirements for serious crimes, end early parole for murderers, stop two-for-one credit for time served in pre-trial, end house arrest for serious crimes and facilitate the hiring of 1,000 new RCMP personnel.
On the surface, these don't appear to be policies amenable to a prison population.
Nevertheless, this data bodes well for Harper - tough-on-crime equals more prisoners which apparently for the Conservatives means more votes.
Harper Tories most popular choice of incarcerated individuals
By Andy Radia | Canada Politics – 11 hours ago
As strange as it sounds, those who have been convicted of a criminal activity voted in large numbers for the "tough-on-crime" Harper Conservatives in the last election.
A story in the Ottawa Citizen reported more than 17,000 incarcerated citizens cast ballots for the May 2 election, and of those 46 per cent voted for the Conservatives, 29 per cent for the Liberals and just 15 per cent for the New Democrats.
In Canada, prisoners were granted the right to vote in 2002 when the Supreme Court ruled disenfranchising incarcerated electors violated Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In this election, voter turnout in the prison population increased by 27 per cent compared to only a 2.5 per cent increase in the general population.
Ironically, throughout the campaign one of the Conservative party's key planks was its tough-on-crime legislation.
The Tories' omnibus crime bill, expected to be introduced this fall, is expected to include legislation to build more prisons and to mandate minimum sentences for drug and sex crimes.
It will also toughen bail requirements for serious crimes, end early parole for murderers, stop two-for-one credit for time served in pre-trial, end house arrest for serious crimes and facilitate the hiring of 1,000 new RCMP personnel.
On the surface, these don't appear to be policies amenable to a prison population.
Nevertheless, this data bodes well for Harper - tough-on-crime equals more prisoners which apparently for the Conservatives means more votes.
Monday, August 29, 2011
This is the man the US wants to extradite to face trial again!
This is the man the US wants to extradite to face trial again!
Libya: Abdelbaset al-Megrahi found 'close to death' in Tripoli
Libya: Abdelbaset al-Megrahi found 'close to death' in Tripoli
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Paedophile's writ over smoke in cells affecting his human rights could cost taxpayers £16m
Paedophile's writ over smoke in cells affecting his human rights could cost taxpayers £16m
Aug 28 2011 Exclusive by Mark Aitken, Sunday Mail
PAEDOPHILE Mahmood Qadri’s anti-smoking writ could end up costing Scots taxpayers up to £16million.
The pervert, jailed for seven years for abusing two young girls at the mosque where he worked, claims his “human dignity” has been infringed by passive smoking behind bars.
Papers lodged at Glasgow Sheriff Court claim he suffered “significant and prolonged physical and mental distress” after being forced to share a cell with smokers.
Qadri, 63, wants £10,000 compensation and human rights experts last night warned his test case, if successful, could lead to a flood of claims from non-smoking inmates.
There are an estimated 1600 non-smokers among Scotland’s 7800 prison population. If they are awarded similar compensation, the final bill could top £16million.
Qadri is being represented by lawyer Tony Kelly, who has already helped prisoners win millions after claiming the practice of slopping-out breached their human rights.
Since Robert Napier won his test case against slopping-out at Glasgow’s Barlinnie prison, inmates have claimed a total of £11million. Qadri says he suffered “mental anguish” while in prison in Edinburgh and Dumfries and that his health was affected.
He has now launched a civil action and applied for legal aid funding.
Top human rights lawyer John Scott said: “This was bound to come up, particularly after the smoking ban and an increasing intolerance of passive smoking.
“Slopping out affected hundreds, if not thousands, of prisoners and this has the potential to affect similar numbers.
“The main reason for this happening is overcrowding. If our prisons weren’t so ridiculously overcrowded, you wouldn’t have so much sharing of cells between smokers and non-smokers.
“No one likes seeing compensation money being given to prisoners. We would much rather see money spent on sorting out problems in prisons.”
Leading QC Paul McBride said: “I suspect many prisoners will jump on this. This is like prisoners seeking compensation for slopping or being denied the right to vote.
“A spectacular amount of money is being given to serial criminals when law-abiding members of the public are feeling the pinch.
“This is an example of why Scotland should have its own bill of rights, instead of following the European Convention of Human Rights provisions, which are ruining this country financially.”
Qadri, an ex-mosque teacher, says he made several complaints about having to share cells with smokers at prisons in Edinburgh and Dumfries but “no prompt action” was taken to resolve the issue.
His court papers claim: “At times he found it difficult to breathe.
“The smoke caused him to cough, he found it difficult to sleep and would hold his blanket over his face at night to try to avoid breathing in the smoke. The pursuer found it extremely uncomfortable and distressing to be subjected for such considerable periods of time to passive smoking.
“He suffered significant physical and mental distress due to prolonged periods of exposure to passive smoking.”
Qadri is awaiting a decision on whether he has secured legal aid before a date can be fixed for any future hearing.
The fiend was convicted three years ago of abusing his young victims during Koran lessons at Edinburgh’s Polwarth Mosque. He had been due to appear at the High Court in 2005 but headed to Pakistan claiming he was doing charity work. He was eventually caught in Germany.
Jailing him, Judge John Morris QC told him: “I am concerned that young children are protected from you.”
Qadri’s compensation bid follows a European Court of Human Rights ruling in favour of a murderer in Romania.
Anesti Elefteriadis claimed his health was damaged over six years locked up with three smokers. He was awarded £3450. Scottish ministers are battling Qadri’s compensation claim.
A government spokesman said: “This is an operational matter for the Scottish
Prison Service. Any challenge would be vigorously defended.”
A prison service spokesman added: “We make every effort to ensure non-smokers are not forced to share cells with smokers but it is not always possible.”
Comment: The Scottish Prison Service cannot defend the indefensible, that is, placing a non smoker in a cell with a smoker. I would advise making an offer of £3,500 in a full and final settlement. The court should also make an order to prevent this happening again.
The two girls should sue for damages @ £1,750 each from Mahmood Qadri.
Paul McBride QC, is talking out of his backside, just like David Cameron, on the issue of a separate Bill of Rights. And it is dishonest of him to blame the European Convention of Human Rights for the economic decline.
Aug 28 2011 Exclusive by Mark Aitken, Sunday Mail
PAEDOPHILE Mahmood Qadri’s anti-smoking writ could end up costing Scots taxpayers up to £16million.
The pervert, jailed for seven years for abusing two young girls at the mosque where he worked, claims his “human dignity” has been infringed by passive smoking behind bars.
Papers lodged at Glasgow Sheriff Court claim he suffered “significant and prolonged physical and mental distress” after being forced to share a cell with smokers.
Qadri, 63, wants £10,000 compensation and human rights experts last night warned his test case, if successful, could lead to a flood of claims from non-smoking inmates.
There are an estimated 1600 non-smokers among Scotland’s 7800 prison population. If they are awarded similar compensation, the final bill could top £16million.
Qadri is being represented by lawyer Tony Kelly, who has already helped prisoners win millions after claiming the practice of slopping-out breached their human rights.
Since Robert Napier won his test case against slopping-out at Glasgow’s Barlinnie prison, inmates have claimed a total of £11million. Qadri says he suffered “mental anguish” while in prison in Edinburgh and Dumfries and that his health was affected.
He has now launched a civil action and applied for legal aid funding.
Top human rights lawyer John Scott said: “This was bound to come up, particularly after the smoking ban and an increasing intolerance of passive smoking.
“Slopping out affected hundreds, if not thousands, of prisoners and this has the potential to affect similar numbers.
“The main reason for this happening is overcrowding. If our prisons weren’t so ridiculously overcrowded, you wouldn’t have so much sharing of cells between smokers and non-smokers.
“No one likes seeing compensation money being given to prisoners. We would much rather see money spent on sorting out problems in prisons.”
Leading QC Paul McBride said: “I suspect many prisoners will jump on this. This is like prisoners seeking compensation for slopping or being denied the right to vote.
“A spectacular amount of money is being given to serial criminals when law-abiding members of the public are feeling the pinch.
“This is an example of why Scotland should have its own bill of rights, instead of following the European Convention of Human Rights provisions, which are ruining this country financially.”
Qadri, an ex-mosque teacher, says he made several complaints about having to share cells with smokers at prisons in Edinburgh and Dumfries but “no prompt action” was taken to resolve the issue.
His court papers claim: “At times he found it difficult to breathe.
“The smoke caused him to cough, he found it difficult to sleep and would hold his blanket over his face at night to try to avoid breathing in the smoke. The pursuer found it extremely uncomfortable and distressing to be subjected for such considerable periods of time to passive smoking.
“He suffered significant physical and mental distress due to prolonged periods of exposure to passive smoking.”
Qadri is awaiting a decision on whether he has secured legal aid before a date can be fixed for any future hearing.
The fiend was convicted three years ago of abusing his young victims during Koran lessons at Edinburgh’s Polwarth Mosque. He had been due to appear at the High Court in 2005 but headed to Pakistan claiming he was doing charity work. He was eventually caught in Germany.
Jailing him, Judge John Morris QC told him: “I am concerned that young children are protected from you.”
Qadri’s compensation bid follows a European Court of Human Rights ruling in favour of a murderer in Romania.
Anesti Elefteriadis claimed his health was damaged over six years locked up with three smokers. He was awarded £3450. Scottish ministers are battling Qadri’s compensation claim.
A government spokesman said: “This is an operational matter for the Scottish
Prison Service. Any challenge would be vigorously defended.”
A prison service spokesman added: “We make every effort to ensure non-smokers are not forced to share cells with smokers but it is not always possible.”
Comment: The Scottish Prison Service cannot defend the indefensible, that is, placing a non smoker in a cell with a smoker. I would advise making an offer of £3,500 in a full and final settlement. The court should also make an order to prevent this happening again.
The two girls should sue for damages @ £1,750 each from Mahmood Qadri.
Paul McBride QC, is talking out of his backside, just like David Cameron, on the issue of a separate Bill of Rights. And it is dishonest of him to blame the European Convention of Human Rights for the economic decline.
San Pedro prison: a very strange tourist attraction
San Pedro prison: a very strange tourist attraction
The notorious Bolivian jail has no bars on the windows, and money can buy you absolutely anything – including a guided tour
By Michael Storey, Sunday, 28 August 2011
La Paz's Plaza de San Pedro looks like any other city plaza in South America. A large church looms over the tree-lined courtyard, there are a few shops and restaurants, and shoe-shine boys hang around for customers as the traffic bustles by. Yet this is one of the most bizarre tourist attractions in the world.
The eastern side of the plaza is dominated by a monolithic walled compound that runs the length of the square. In the centre is a large gate, with armed guards and a police van perpetually parked outside. A steady flow of women carrying bundles and children with schoolbags pass through the gates. They are entering the infamous San Pedro prison, where, if you know the right people (or, to be more precise, the wrong ones), you can take a guided tour.
The prison is a former monastery and houses around 1,500 prisoners, 80 per cent of whom are in for drug offences. San Pedro's notoriety was spread by Rusty Young's 2003 book Marching Powder, which tells the story of a British drug trafficker, Thomas McFadden, and his experiences in the prison, as well as describing the rampant corruption inside San Pedro's walls, but also in the Bolivian justice system. McFadden spent four years in San Pedro after he was arrested in 1996 with four kilos of cocaine at La Paz's El Alto airport. A film of the book, starring Don Cheadle and produced by Brad Pitt's company, is set to be released in 2012.
The tours were started by McFadden after he bribed guards to let his Israeli girlfriend in to spend the night. Word spread along the gringo trail, and soon backpackers were queuing up at the gates, money in hand, hoping for an experience of life in a third-world prison, as well as some of the world's cheapest cocaine. Since McFadden's release, other prisoners have taken over the tours, which, at £35 per person, and three tours of 12 people a day, are a lucrative business.
Within minutes of walking on to Plaza de San Pedro, four friends and I are approached by a man asking us if we would like a tour of the prison, lasting two hours, with an English-speaking guide. After being led through the gates, we are taken to a small office, where we each pay our 400 bolivianos, a number is written on our hands, and we are led through a narrow corridor to the main gate and into the prison. A man aged between 45 and 50, with a receding hairline, hook nose and bad teeth steps forward. He wears a scruffy sports jacket, trousers and tattered trainers. "My name is Luis, welcome to San Pedro prison," he says.
He leads us up a staircase, past prisoners on all sides, into an office, where there are two rough-looking prisoners. These are our bodyguards. One is stocky, in his mid to late thirties, has broad shoulders, and wears a football jersey and tracksuit bottoms. The other is dressed in a baggy T-shirt, jeans, and a blue baseball cap turned backwards. A large scar runs from the corner of his mouth halfway to his ear. Both are in for murder.
The tour begins at the prison kitchen. Inside, the head chef is attending to a massive pot of unappetising-looking soup, while prisoners with filthy hands sit on small crates as they cut and peel vegetables. The concrete walls are stained, the ovens and stoves are rusting, and the heat is intense. Luis says people who can afford it don't eat the prison food. They use one of the many restaurants dotted around the prison – small affairs, a single stand or stall, mostly serving fried chicken with chips or rice, some with a plastic table and umbrella and a few chairs outside.
There are eight sections in San Pedro, each with cells of varying comfort. Prisoners can walk freely among the sections. Prisoners are not issued with cells, as they must be purchased. Prices vary according to what section you want. Each has two floors of cells in a large brick building surrounding an open-air concrete courtyard; this has benches and tables with checker boards painted on them. The outside walls are painted a bright colour, such as sky blue or yellow. As you walk through a section, you must dodge running children and duck around clotheslines hanging across the courtyard.
The cell blocks in wealthier sections resemble rectangular apartment blocks or a cheap motel. A winding metal staircase leads you to an upper floor where a wooden walkway takes you along the row of cells, each with a wooden door. The walkway doubles as a balcony for the inmates. The cells in the richer, Posta, section are ensuite, with tiled floors, cable TV, and DVD players.
Cells in the poorer sections are designed for one person, but often house five. The walls and floors are bare concrete, and prisoners lie on stained mattresses. Their occupants attempt to cover up the shabby walls with photographs or tattered posters. Personal belongings such as cups or books rest on rickety bedside tables. The doors are made from corrugated iron; some have small squares cut out for a window.
There are real estate agents operating within the prison and the market for cells acts just like a genuine housing market, with prices fluctuating, depending on the demand. When prisoners buy a cell, they are given the key, and contracts and deeds are signed. Those who cannot afford to do this sleep on the ground in any abandoned area they can find. The cheapest cell will cost around £100, whereas a cell in a nicer section will sell for up to £350. There is a special section of the prison, off-bounds for the tour, which is reserved for high-profile prisoners such as drug barons and corrupt politicians. Cells here are more like actual apartments and can sell for as much as £3,000.
Prisoners can earn money by working in a shop, selling crafts to the tourists or by baking bread and selling it to other prisoners. Others act as couriers, relaying messages from the gates to prisoners for as little as one boliviano a time. The prison is more akin to a Bolivian slum than an actual jail. Apart from the high walls and the main gate, there are no prison bars. The guards only enter to take the morning roll call, or if there is any major violence such as a murder or a riot.
As we walk through the narrow alleyways, tight corridors and crowded courtyards, there are vendors selling fruit and vegetables, shops dealing in soft drinks, sweets, and other items such as toilet paper. Some prisoners sell handicrafts they have made or pictures they've drawn. Each section has an elected leader who is responsible for security, finances, and rules. Most prisoners' families live in the prison with them and every time we pass a group of kids, screams of "gringo, gringo" reverberate around the grounds.
"This is the pool," Luis says as he points to a circular, concrete pool around five metres in diameter containing barely a foot of filthy water. "Sometimes you wake up in the morning to find a body in here. A lot of San Pedro's problems are ended in this pool." Indeed, one of the most disturbing chapters in Marching Powder describes how a group of rapists are brutally beaten to death at the pool by a mob of prisoners. Luis says the violence in San Pedro has subsided a lot since McFadden's time: "A lot of the gangs are gone, so it's not as dangerous as it was. The main problem is when there is a party with alcohol, and then you have trouble. But you just have to make sure you don't start any fights because it's so easy to get a knife in here."
The tour finishes at Luis's favourite place, an open balcony in one of the upper sections that looks out on to the city of La Paz, with the Andes mountains towering behind. "I like to come here and think about the outside world," Luis muses. The prison barber sweeps up hair behind us, as we gaze at La Paz.
There are seven different "tour companies" operating in San Pedro. The money from the tours is spread throughout the prison system, with the authorities and guards taking most of the profits. Tour guides such as Luis take very little of the actual cash. Before leaving the San Pedro, we are asked for a tip. We give 20 bolivianos each. The majority of this will go to Luis's section and be spent on blankets, toys for the children and general upkeep.
Temporary suspension of the tours is a regular occurrence and usually happens when the prisoners riot. It can also occur as a result of there being too much publicity about the tours, as happened in 2009 after a video taken from inside the prison by a tourist appeared on YouTube. It's difficult to see how the tours will last with the attention that a Hollywood movie is likely to bring.
The notorious Bolivian jail has no bars on the windows, and money can buy you absolutely anything – including a guided tour
By Michael Storey, Sunday, 28 August 2011
La Paz's Plaza de San Pedro looks like any other city plaza in South America. A large church looms over the tree-lined courtyard, there are a few shops and restaurants, and shoe-shine boys hang around for customers as the traffic bustles by. Yet this is one of the most bizarre tourist attractions in the world.
The eastern side of the plaza is dominated by a monolithic walled compound that runs the length of the square. In the centre is a large gate, with armed guards and a police van perpetually parked outside. A steady flow of women carrying bundles and children with schoolbags pass through the gates. They are entering the infamous San Pedro prison, where, if you know the right people (or, to be more precise, the wrong ones), you can take a guided tour.
The prison is a former monastery and houses around 1,500 prisoners, 80 per cent of whom are in for drug offences. San Pedro's notoriety was spread by Rusty Young's 2003 book Marching Powder, which tells the story of a British drug trafficker, Thomas McFadden, and his experiences in the prison, as well as describing the rampant corruption inside San Pedro's walls, but also in the Bolivian justice system. McFadden spent four years in San Pedro after he was arrested in 1996 with four kilos of cocaine at La Paz's El Alto airport. A film of the book, starring Don Cheadle and produced by Brad Pitt's company, is set to be released in 2012.
The tours were started by McFadden after he bribed guards to let his Israeli girlfriend in to spend the night. Word spread along the gringo trail, and soon backpackers were queuing up at the gates, money in hand, hoping for an experience of life in a third-world prison, as well as some of the world's cheapest cocaine. Since McFadden's release, other prisoners have taken over the tours, which, at £35 per person, and three tours of 12 people a day, are a lucrative business.
Within minutes of walking on to Plaza de San Pedro, four friends and I are approached by a man asking us if we would like a tour of the prison, lasting two hours, with an English-speaking guide. After being led through the gates, we are taken to a small office, where we each pay our 400 bolivianos, a number is written on our hands, and we are led through a narrow corridor to the main gate and into the prison. A man aged between 45 and 50, with a receding hairline, hook nose and bad teeth steps forward. He wears a scruffy sports jacket, trousers and tattered trainers. "My name is Luis, welcome to San Pedro prison," he says.
He leads us up a staircase, past prisoners on all sides, into an office, where there are two rough-looking prisoners. These are our bodyguards. One is stocky, in his mid to late thirties, has broad shoulders, and wears a football jersey and tracksuit bottoms. The other is dressed in a baggy T-shirt, jeans, and a blue baseball cap turned backwards. A large scar runs from the corner of his mouth halfway to his ear. Both are in for murder.
The tour begins at the prison kitchen. Inside, the head chef is attending to a massive pot of unappetising-looking soup, while prisoners with filthy hands sit on small crates as they cut and peel vegetables. The concrete walls are stained, the ovens and stoves are rusting, and the heat is intense. Luis says people who can afford it don't eat the prison food. They use one of the many restaurants dotted around the prison – small affairs, a single stand or stall, mostly serving fried chicken with chips or rice, some with a plastic table and umbrella and a few chairs outside.
There are eight sections in San Pedro, each with cells of varying comfort. Prisoners can walk freely among the sections. Prisoners are not issued with cells, as they must be purchased. Prices vary according to what section you want. Each has two floors of cells in a large brick building surrounding an open-air concrete courtyard; this has benches and tables with checker boards painted on them. The outside walls are painted a bright colour, such as sky blue or yellow. As you walk through a section, you must dodge running children and duck around clotheslines hanging across the courtyard.
The cell blocks in wealthier sections resemble rectangular apartment blocks or a cheap motel. A winding metal staircase leads you to an upper floor where a wooden walkway takes you along the row of cells, each with a wooden door. The walkway doubles as a balcony for the inmates. The cells in the richer, Posta, section are ensuite, with tiled floors, cable TV, and DVD players.
Cells in the poorer sections are designed for one person, but often house five. The walls and floors are bare concrete, and prisoners lie on stained mattresses. Their occupants attempt to cover up the shabby walls with photographs or tattered posters. Personal belongings such as cups or books rest on rickety bedside tables. The doors are made from corrugated iron; some have small squares cut out for a window.
There are real estate agents operating within the prison and the market for cells acts just like a genuine housing market, with prices fluctuating, depending on the demand. When prisoners buy a cell, they are given the key, and contracts and deeds are signed. Those who cannot afford to do this sleep on the ground in any abandoned area they can find. The cheapest cell will cost around £100, whereas a cell in a nicer section will sell for up to £350. There is a special section of the prison, off-bounds for the tour, which is reserved for high-profile prisoners such as drug barons and corrupt politicians. Cells here are more like actual apartments and can sell for as much as £3,000.
Prisoners can earn money by working in a shop, selling crafts to the tourists or by baking bread and selling it to other prisoners. Others act as couriers, relaying messages from the gates to prisoners for as little as one boliviano a time. The prison is more akin to a Bolivian slum than an actual jail. Apart from the high walls and the main gate, there are no prison bars. The guards only enter to take the morning roll call, or if there is any major violence such as a murder or a riot.
As we walk through the narrow alleyways, tight corridors and crowded courtyards, there are vendors selling fruit and vegetables, shops dealing in soft drinks, sweets, and other items such as toilet paper. Some prisoners sell handicrafts they have made or pictures they've drawn. Each section has an elected leader who is responsible for security, finances, and rules. Most prisoners' families live in the prison with them and every time we pass a group of kids, screams of "gringo, gringo" reverberate around the grounds.
"This is the pool," Luis says as he points to a circular, concrete pool around five metres in diameter containing barely a foot of filthy water. "Sometimes you wake up in the morning to find a body in here. A lot of San Pedro's problems are ended in this pool." Indeed, one of the most disturbing chapters in Marching Powder describes how a group of rapists are brutally beaten to death at the pool by a mob of prisoners. Luis says the violence in San Pedro has subsided a lot since McFadden's time: "A lot of the gangs are gone, so it's not as dangerous as it was. The main problem is when there is a party with alcohol, and then you have trouble. But you just have to make sure you don't start any fights because it's so easy to get a knife in here."
The tour finishes at Luis's favourite place, an open balcony in one of the upper sections that looks out on to the city of La Paz, with the Andes mountains towering behind. "I like to come here and think about the outside world," Luis muses. The prison barber sweeps up hair behind us, as we gaze at La Paz.
There are seven different "tour companies" operating in San Pedro. The money from the tours is spread throughout the prison system, with the authorities and guards taking most of the profits. Tour guides such as Luis take very little of the actual cash. Before leaving the San Pedro, we are asked for a tip. We give 20 bolivianos each. The majority of this will go to Luis's section and be spent on blankets, toys for the children and general upkeep.
Temporary suspension of the tours is a regular occurrence and usually happens when the prisoners riot. It can also occur as a result of there being too much publicity about the tours, as happened in 2009 after a video taken from inside the prison by a tourist appeared on YouTube. It's difficult to see how the tours will last with the attention that a Hollywood movie is likely to bring.
'Sentencing frenzy' will fill prisons within weeks
'Sentencing frenzy' will fill prisons within weeks
Head of Britain's prison governors tells IoS that too many of those involved in the riots are being locked up
By Emily Dugan and Kunal Dutta, Sunday, 28 August 2011
The leader of Britain's prison governors accused magistrates of indulging in a sentencing "feeding frenzy" as prisons near capacity. Eoin McLennan-Murray, president of the Prison Governors Association (PGA), said courts had shown "naked popularism" in meting out tough justice after the riots.
Seven in 10 of those charged with riot-related offences have been remanded in custody, likely to receive a custodial sentence, compared with only one in 10 of those charged with serious offences last year. The PGA warns that if people continue to be put behind bars at such a rate, prisons will be full by mid-September.
"It's like when you've got sharks and there's blood in the water and it's a feeding frenzy. There's a sentencing frenzy and we seem to have lost all sight of proportionality," Mr McLennan-Murray said. "It's appealing to the populist mentality, and that's not the best basis on which to sentence people. The norms of sentencing are being ignored."
The prison population in England and Wales reached a record high for the third consecutive week last Friday as the courts continue to jail hundreds of people involved in the riots. The total number of prisoners hit 86,821, after a further 167 people were jailed. The population is now only 1,500 short of the usable operational capacity. Scotland Yard has warned its investigations are "far from finished" despite having already made more than 2,000 arrests.
Mr McLennan-Murray said the Government's tough rhetoric on the summer's unrest was indirectly responsible for the increasingly stringent courtroom stance. "Even without changes in legislation, the Government can have an impact on sentencing. They don't have to put pressure on the judiciary because the media does the work for them," he said. "It's about proportionality. We don't want to get to the stage where the state starts acting in an extreme way. It's naked popularism."
The rapid rise of inmates has put a strain on the nation's prisons, with attacks on staff and incidents of unrest. At Feltham Young Offenders Institute, inmates broke on to the roof of the building and tore up the gymnasium. Clashes in Styal women's prison, Cheshire, saw "traumatised and psychologically vulnerable" women as young as 17 involved in confrontations with other prisoners.
Putting minor offenders behind bars was a risky strategy, said Mr McLennan-Murray. "Once you've been in prison it increases the chance you're going in again. Prison isn't the sort of place where you learn the best way."
Roma Hooper, director of Make Justice Work, said: "We are seeing major failings in duties of care, with young people with no prison experience sharing cells with people with criminal convictions. Short sentencing means that many will come out in a worse condition than they went in. The Government has overlooked the possibility of community sentencing, which is far more appropriate."
Head of Britain's prison governors tells IoS that too many of those involved in the riots are being locked up
By Emily Dugan and Kunal Dutta, Sunday, 28 August 2011
The leader of Britain's prison governors accused magistrates of indulging in a sentencing "feeding frenzy" as prisons near capacity. Eoin McLennan-Murray, president of the Prison Governors Association (PGA), said courts had shown "naked popularism" in meting out tough justice after the riots.
Seven in 10 of those charged with riot-related offences have been remanded in custody, likely to receive a custodial sentence, compared with only one in 10 of those charged with serious offences last year. The PGA warns that if people continue to be put behind bars at such a rate, prisons will be full by mid-September.
"It's like when you've got sharks and there's blood in the water and it's a feeding frenzy. There's a sentencing frenzy and we seem to have lost all sight of proportionality," Mr McLennan-Murray said. "It's appealing to the populist mentality, and that's not the best basis on which to sentence people. The norms of sentencing are being ignored."
The prison population in England and Wales reached a record high for the third consecutive week last Friday as the courts continue to jail hundreds of people involved in the riots. The total number of prisoners hit 86,821, after a further 167 people were jailed. The population is now only 1,500 short of the usable operational capacity. Scotland Yard has warned its investigations are "far from finished" despite having already made more than 2,000 arrests.
Mr McLennan-Murray said the Government's tough rhetoric on the summer's unrest was indirectly responsible for the increasingly stringent courtroom stance. "Even without changes in legislation, the Government can have an impact on sentencing. They don't have to put pressure on the judiciary because the media does the work for them," he said. "It's about proportionality. We don't want to get to the stage where the state starts acting in an extreme way. It's naked popularism."
The rapid rise of inmates has put a strain on the nation's prisons, with attacks on staff and incidents of unrest. At Feltham Young Offenders Institute, inmates broke on to the roof of the building and tore up the gymnasium. Clashes in Styal women's prison, Cheshire, saw "traumatised and psychologically vulnerable" women as young as 17 involved in confrontations with other prisoners.
Putting minor offenders behind bars was a risky strategy, said Mr McLennan-Murray. "Once you've been in prison it increases the chance you're going in again. Prison isn't the sort of place where you learn the best way."
Roma Hooper, director of Make Justice Work, said: "We are seeing major failings in duties of care, with young people with no prison experience sharing cells with people with criminal convictions. Short sentencing means that many will come out in a worse condition than they went in. The Government has overlooked the possibility of community sentencing, which is far more appropriate."
Saturday, August 27, 2011
The people should be replacing Cameron not letting him take away our human rights!
The people should be replacing Cameron not letting him take away our human rights!
"Conservatives don't want to scrap the Human Rights Act. We want to replace it with a British Bill of Rights".
So states Tim Montgomerie. Before quoting: "Conservatives never seem to understand the importance of language as much as their Labour opponents do".
I don't think it matters what language is used to advocate getting rid of the HRA 1998. In my view, there are some wrongs with the HRA. However, replacing it appears to me to be extremism. I think the HRA can be improved with simple amendments. It is xenophobic nonsense to seek to replace it with a British Bill of Rights. Civil rights are not quite the same as human rights. As the title explains Universal Declaration of Human Rights is about human rights which are universal, rather than rights solely British, French or German, for example. It forms part of The International Bill of Human Rights. Therefore, a British Bill of Rights appears to me to be totally superfluous to our requirements. Furthermore, the European Convention on Human Rights was in part drafted from the Bill of Rights 1688/9, which is, of course, British!
I suspect that what Tim Montgomerie is really saying is that the spin, lies, used by the Tory party is not being swallowed by the general public. Therefore, he is suggesting that the language is altered to dress up the real meaning with better camouflage. If this is the case then people will need to be very suspicious of those seeking to remove human rights from the electorate. It is the sort of thing a tyrant would do. When a totalitarian or authoritarian state seeks to remove human rights it is only for one reason, to abuse its citizens.
David Cameron's war against human rights is as stupid as George Bush's war against terror. He is getting jittery as the 11 October deadline approaches to bring forward proposals to amend the law to allow convicted prisoners the vote. It is dishonest of him to talk about a social fightback like is happening in Libya. There it is the people against the regime. With Cameron he is against the people deserving of human rights.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Eleanor Roosevelt with the Spanish version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (10 December 1948 at Palais de Chaillot, Paris). The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions and laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of Human Rights; and in 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill took on the force of international law.
European Convention on Human Rights
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (commonly known as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the Convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.
The Convention established the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Any person who feels his or her rights have been violated under the Convention by a state party can take a case to the Court. Judgments finding violations are binding on the States concerned and they are obliged to execute them. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe monitors the execution of judgments, particularly to ensure payment of the amounts awarded by the Court to the applicants in compensation for the damage they have sustained. The establishment of a Court to protect individuals from human rights violations is an innovative feature for an international convention on human rights, as it gives the individual an active role on the international arena (traditionally, only states are considered actors in international law). The European Convention is still the only international human rights agreement providing such a high degree of individual protection. State parties can also take cases against other state parties to the Court, although this power is rarely used.
The Convention has several protocols. For example, Protocol 13 prohibits the death penalty. The protocols accepted vary from State Party to State Party, though it is understood that state parties should be party to as many protocols as possible.
History
The development of a regional system of Human Rights protection operating across Europe can be seen as a direct response to twin concerns. First, in the aftermath of the Second World War, the convention, drawing on the inspiration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be seen as part of a wider response of the Allied Powers in delivering a human rights agenda through which it was believed that the most serious human rights violations which had occurred during the Second World War (most notably, the Holocaust) could be avoided in the future. Second, the Convention was a response to the growth of Communism in Eastern Europe and designed to protect the member states of the Council of Europe from communist subversion. This, in part, explains the constant references to values and principles that are "necessary in a democratic society" throughout the Convention, despite the fact that such principles are not in any way defined within the convention itself.
The Convention was drafted by the Council of Europe after World War II in response to a call issued by Europeans from all walks of life who had gathered at the Hague Congress (1948). When over 100 parliamentarians from the twelve member nations of the Council of Europe came together in Strasbourg in the summer of 1949 for the first ever meeting of the Council's Consultative Assembly, drafting a "charter of human rights" and creating a Court to enforce it was high on their agenda. British MP and lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, the Chair of the Assembly's Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions, guided the drafting of the Convention. As a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, he had seen first-hand how international justice could be effectively applied. With his help, French former minister and Resistance fighter Pierre-Henri Teitgen submitted a report to the Assembly proposing a list of rights to be protected, selecting a number from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights just agreed to in New York, and defining how the enforcing judicial mechanism might operate. After extensive debates, the Assembly sent its final proposal to the Council's Committee of Ministers, which convened a group of experts to draft the Convention itself.
The Convention was designed to incorporate a traditional civil liberties approach to securing "effective political democracy", from the strongest traditions in the United Kingdom, France and other member states of the fledgling Council of Europe. The Convention was opened for signature on 4 November 1950 in Rome. It was ratified and entered into force on 3 September 1953. It is overseen by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and the Council of Europe. Until recently, the Convention was also overseen by a European Commission on Human Rights.
Drafting
The Convention is drafted in broad terms, in a similar (albeit more modern) manner to the English Bill of Rights, the American Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man or the first part of the German Basic law. Statements of principle are, from a legal point of view, not determinative and require extensive interpretation by courts to bring out meaning in particular factual situations.
"Conservatives don't want to scrap the Human Rights Act. We want to replace it with a British Bill of Rights".
So states Tim Montgomerie. Before quoting: "Conservatives never seem to understand the importance of language as much as their Labour opponents do".
I don't think it matters what language is used to advocate getting rid of the HRA 1998. In my view, there are some wrongs with the HRA. However, replacing it appears to me to be extremism. I think the HRA can be improved with simple amendments. It is xenophobic nonsense to seek to replace it with a British Bill of Rights. Civil rights are not quite the same as human rights. As the title explains Universal Declaration of Human Rights is about human rights which are universal, rather than rights solely British, French or German, for example. It forms part of The International Bill of Human Rights. Therefore, a British Bill of Rights appears to me to be totally superfluous to our requirements. Furthermore, the European Convention on Human Rights was in part drafted from the Bill of Rights 1688/9, which is, of course, British!
I suspect that what Tim Montgomerie is really saying is that the spin, lies, used by the Tory party is not being swallowed by the general public. Therefore, he is suggesting that the language is altered to dress up the real meaning with better camouflage. If this is the case then people will need to be very suspicious of those seeking to remove human rights from the electorate. It is the sort of thing a tyrant would do. When a totalitarian or authoritarian state seeks to remove human rights it is only for one reason, to abuse its citizens.
David Cameron's war against human rights is as stupid as George Bush's war against terror. He is getting jittery as the 11 October deadline approaches to bring forward proposals to amend the law to allow convicted prisoners the vote. It is dishonest of him to talk about a social fightback like is happening in Libya. There it is the people against the regime. With Cameron he is against the people deserving of human rights.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Eleanor Roosevelt with the Spanish version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (10 December 1948 at Palais de Chaillot, Paris). The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions and laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of Human Rights; and in 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill took on the force of international law.
European Convention on Human Rights
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (commonly known as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the Convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.
The Convention established the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Any person who feels his or her rights have been violated under the Convention by a state party can take a case to the Court. Judgments finding violations are binding on the States concerned and they are obliged to execute them. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe monitors the execution of judgments, particularly to ensure payment of the amounts awarded by the Court to the applicants in compensation for the damage they have sustained. The establishment of a Court to protect individuals from human rights violations is an innovative feature for an international convention on human rights, as it gives the individual an active role on the international arena (traditionally, only states are considered actors in international law). The European Convention is still the only international human rights agreement providing such a high degree of individual protection. State parties can also take cases against other state parties to the Court, although this power is rarely used.
The Convention has several protocols. For example, Protocol 13 prohibits the death penalty. The protocols accepted vary from State Party to State Party, though it is understood that state parties should be party to as many protocols as possible.
History
The development of a regional system of Human Rights protection operating across Europe can be seen as a direct response to twin concerns. First, in the aftermath of the Second World War, the convention, drawing on the inspiration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be seen as part of a wider response of the Allied Powers in delivering a human rights agenda through which it was believed that the most serious human rights violations which had occurred during the Second World War (most notably, the Holocaust) could be avoided in the future. Second, the Convention was a response to the growth of Communism in Eastern Europe and designed to protect the member states of the Council of Europe from communist subversion. This, in part, explains the constant references to values and principles that are "necessary in a democratic society" throughout the Convention, despite the fact that such principles are not in any way defined within the convention itself.
The Convention was drafted by the Council of Europe after World War II in response to a call issued by Europeans from all walks of life who had gathered at the Hague Congress (1948). When over 100 parliamentarians from the twelve member nations of the Council of Europe came together in Strasbourg in the summer of 1949 for the first ever meeting of the Council's Consultative Assembly, drafting a "charter of human rights" and creating a Court to enforce it was high on their agenda. British MP and lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, the Chair of the Assembly's Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions, guided the drafting of the Convention. As a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, he had seen first-hand how international justice could be effectively applied. With his help, French former minister and Resistance fighter Pierre-Henri Teitgen submitted a report to the Assembly proposing a list of rights to be protected, selecting a number from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights just agreed to in New York, and defining how the enforcing judicial mechanism might operate. After extensive debates, the Assembly sent its final proposal to the Council's Committee of Ministers, which convened a group of experts to draft the Convention itself.
The Convention was designed to incorporate a traditional civil liberties approach to securing "effective political democracy", from the strongest traditions in the United Kingdom, France and other member states of the fledgling Council of Europe. The Convention was opened for signature on 4 November 1950 in Rome. It was ratified and entered into force on 3 September 1953. It is overseen by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and the Council of Europe. Until recently, the Convention was also overseen by a European Commission on Human Rights.
Drafting
The Convention is drafted in broad terms, in a similar (albeit more modern) manner to the English Bill of Rights, the American Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man or the first part of the German Basic law. Statements of principle are, from a legal point of view, not determinative and require extensive interpretation by courts to bring out meaning in particular factual situations.
Convicted rioters victimised by other prisoners, relatives say
Convicted rioters victimised by other prisoners, relatives say
By Jerome Taylor
Saturday, 27 August 2011
Conditions inside young offenders' institutions are deteriorating in the wake of the riots as the prison population reaches a new high and courts continued to remand large numbers of young people behind bars.
Relatives and solicitors acting on behalf of teenagers inside juvenile prisons have told The Independent of worsening conditions, with attacks on suspected rioters, overcrowding in cells and long periods of detention designed to separate riot prisoners from others.
One mother, whose teenage son is serving a sentence at Isis Young Offender Institution in Thamesmead, described how he was assaulted by inmates who thought he was a rioter. "They thumped him right in the face," she said. "He's not one of the rioters. But because he arrived on the same day as some of the rioters those inside attacked him." The mother, who asked to remain anonymous, said cells had mattresses placed on the floor for new arrivals. "Those cells are tiny," she said. "The person on the floor will have their head right next to a toilet."
Paul Mathew, a lawyer for the firm GT Stewart who represents a 15-year-old suspected rioter remanded in custody at Feltham Young Offenders Institute, said prison authorities were keeping looters apart from those already inside. "Those suspected of rioting are being held separate from the rest of the population for their own safety," he said. "I asked my client what he did all day and he told that they are almost always in lock-up. There seems to be no education or training. We're creating criminals of the future."
With thousands of people remanded into custody following this month's riots, the prison population has expanded for the past three weeks in a row. Figures released by the Ministry of Justice showed that there are currently 86,821 behind bars, an increase of 167 on last week's record figure of 86,654.
Finding spare beds is a problem in London and the South-east. The Prison Reform Trust has received reports of suspected teenage rioters from the capital being transported as far as Wetherby Prison in Leeds and Hindley near Manchester.
Juliet Lyon, director of the trust, says the sheer number of teenage rioters being remanded into custody is compounding existing problems. "Staffing levels are barely adequate at the best of times," she said. "A high number of first-timers will increase risk. Young people are frequently held far from home and bussing youngsters from Feltham to Yorkshire, for example, will make family visits very difficult."
A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice denied the allegations that suspected rioters were being held separately from other inmates at Feltham or that there was a lack of space at Isis. "Those people suspected or convicted of rioting are treated in the same way as other prisoners and there have been no assaults other than some scuffles two weeks ago," she said. "Neither of the allegations concerning Isis is true." The MoJ did admit that juveniles from London had been moved to the North-west. "They will be moved as space becomes available in the south."
By Jerome Taylor
Saturday, 27 August 2011
Conditions inside young offenders' institutions are deteriorating in the wake of the riots as the prison population reaches a new high and courts continued to remand large numbers of young people behind bars.
Relatives and solicitors acting on behalf of teenagers inside juvenile prisons have told The Independent of worsening conditions, with attacks on suspected rioters, overcrowding in cells and long periods of detention designed to separate riot prisoners from others.
One mother, whose teenage son is serving a sentence at Isis Young Offender Institution in Thamesmead, described how he was assaulted by inmates who thought he was a rioter. "They thumped him right in the face," she said. "He's not one of the rioters. But because he arrived on the same day as some of the rioters those inside attacked him." The mother, who asked to remain anonymous, said cells had mattresses placed on the floor for new arrivals. "Those cells are tiny," she said. "The person on the floor will have their head right next to a toilet."
Paul Mathew, a lawyer for the firm GT Stewart who represents a 15-year-old suspected rioter remanded in custody at Feltham Young Offenders Institute, said prison authorities were keeping looters apart from those already inside. "Those suspected of rioting are being held separate from the rest of the population for their own safety," he said. "I asked my client what he did all day and he told that they are almost always in lock-up. There seems to be no education or training. We're creating criminals of the future."
With thousands of people remanded into custody following this month's riots, the prison population has expanded for the past three weeks in a row. Figures released by the Ministry of Justice showed that there are currently 86,821 behind bars, an increase of 167 on last week's record figure of 86,654.
Finding spare beds is a problem in London and the South-east. The Prison Reform Trust has received reports of suspected teenage rioters from the capital being transported as far as Wetherby Prison in Leeds and Hindley near Manchester.
Juliet Lyon, director of the trust, says the sheer number of teenage rioters being remanded into custody is compounding existing problems. "Staffing levels are barely adequate at the best of times," she said. "A high number of first-timers will increase risk. Young people are frequently held far from home and bussing youngsters from Feltham to Yorkshire, for example, will make family visits very difficult."
A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice denied the allegations that suspected rioters were being held separately from other inmates at Feltham or that there was a lack of space at Isis. "Those people suspected or convicted of rioting are treated in the same way as other prisoners and there have been no assaults other than some scuffles two weeks ago," she said. "Neither of the allegations concerning Isis is true." The MoJ did admit that juveniles from London had been moved to the North-west. "They will be moved as space becomes available in the south."
Friday, August 26, 2011
A Nazi writes in the Daily Telegraph
A Nazi writes in the Daily Telegraph
Why the Left is winning the fight over the wrongs of the Human Rights Act
Conservatives never seem to understand the importance of language as much as their Labour opponents do.
By Graeme Archer
7:34PM BST 26 Aug 2011
Are you in favour of human rights? Of course you are. Who could be against them? In as much as I thought at all about Labour’s Human Rights Act, which incorporated our treaty commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights into British law, I imagined that it was a money-making scheme for barristers, who would test the patience of the rest of us with an irritating but mostly harmless sequence of cases involving school uniforms and religious jewellery. Then came the demand that prisoners should be allowed to vote, and my patience snapped.
It’s easy to mock the Leftist fetish for the adjectival phrase “human rights”, as though a worldly noun is imbued with goodness simply because it has a certain prefix. Colonel Gaddafi’s Libya once chaired the UN Human Rights Council: the council wasn’t particularly good as a result. To mock is not sufficient, however. The phrase itself has political power.
Someone who understands this is Denis MacShane, the Labour MP for Rotherham, who published the following on the internet on Tuesday: “Just popped into [the] Nuremberg rally memorial site, to recall what happens when [the] Right gets carried away. Wonder if Germans trash human rights?” We should listen to Mr MacShane, not least because the IT systems he uses to transmit his thoughts cost us all so dearly (he famously claimed for eight laptops in three years; the police are currently investigating his expenses).
I don’t judge Mr MacShane’s probity (we’ll leave that to the police, shall we?). But let’s not forgive his frankly disgusting equation of Nazi Germany with the Government’s response to the riots in Britain a fortnight ago – and rather than react to them in his own terms, let’s consider why he would want to make such an unpleasant remark, and, more importantly, why he knows he can get away with it.
Labour MPs like Mr MacShane can set themselves up as ethical judges of anyone who questions the Human Rights Act, and its cultural consequences, because language lets them. Conservatives never seem to understand the importance of language as much as their opponents do; because of this they consistently lose every cultural battle of consequence.
The words used to describe a law ultimately control the parameters of the debate which polite society will permit about it, even if the words so used have almost no connection with the object they attempt to describe. The Human Rights Act should really be entitled The “Incorporation into UK law of the right for citizens to sue the government in a British court, in the kinds of cases that used to be heard in a faintly quaint institution which doesn’t resemble a British court in constitution or practice, and which we could safely ignore” Act. To support the repeal of that would be applauded. To speak out against the same thing, once it is named “the Human Rights Act”, is not: Denis MacShane is not a fool. He knows exactly the mood he wants to create, and how to use language to create it.
Which government ministers are the most successful? Surely Iain Duncan Smith at welfare, and Michael Gove at education. Not only are their policies effective and in tune with majority opinion, but they have also found a language which is hard to attack from the Left. IDS talks of the immorality of abandoning a person on benefits, turning a debate about workfare into a Good Samaritan duty. Gove speaks angrily about the scandal of under-performing schools, and the young lives they blight, which leaves his teaching union opponents looking selfish. Other Conservatives should learn from them: mimicking the Left’s language (about “diversity” and so on) is not a game a Tory can ever win. But if you choose the language of the fight yourself, you’re more than half way there.
Now answer the question we opened with. The only acceptable public answer is “Of course I am in favour of human rights”. But honestly? “Usually, I am. Sometimes, I am not. Not when such 'rights’ are used to demand votes for prisoners, or to prevent foreign killers from being expelled from the country. Furthermore, I refuse to accept the Left’s insistence that the laws which govern all of human interaction can be codified into a text which will never contradict itself, and which should be immune to criticism, just because they gave it a nice-sounding name.”
It’s not (only) knowledge that is power, in the old phrase; it’s language, too. There may one day be a government, free of the baleful influence of the Liberal Democrats, which deletes the Human Rights Act from the statute book and reappraises our relationship with bodies such as the Council of Europe. But what if it turns out that the Act was a symptom, and not a cause?
A culture or a party which uses language to end political debate is far more chilling than any single legislative act. Denis MacShane understands this. That’s why he will call you a Nazi if you dare to disagree with him: because he knows that he can.
Comment: The Nazi author fails to explain why human beings, which prisoners are, should be denied their human rights.
Why the Left is winning the fight over the wrongs of the Human Rights Act
Conservatives never seem to understand the importance of language as much as their Labour opponents do.
By Graeme Archer
7:34PM BST 26 Aug 2011
Are you in favour of human rights? Of course you are. Who could be against them? In as much as I thought at all about Labour’s Human Rights Act, which incorporated our treaty commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights into British law, I imagined that it was a money-making scheme for barristers, who would test the patience of the rest of us with an irritating but mostly harmless sequence of cases involving school uniforms and religious jewellery. Then came the demand that prisoners should be allowed to vote, and my patience snapped.
It’s easy to mock the Leftist fetish for the adjectival phrase “human rights”, as though a worldly noun is imbued with goodness simply because it has a certain prefix. Colonel Gaddafi’s Libya once chaired the UN Human Rights Council: the council wasn’t particularly good as a result. To mock is not sufficient, however. The phrase itself has political power.
Someone who understands this is Denis MacShane, the Labour MP for Rotherham, who published the following on the internet on Tuesday: “Just popped into [the] Nuremberg rally memorial site, to recall what happens when [the] Right gets carried away. Wonder if Germans trash human rights?” We should listen to Mr MacShane, not least because the IT systems he uses to transmit his thoughts cost us all so dearly (he famously claimed for eight laptops in three years; the police are currently investigating his expenses).
I don’t judge Mr MacShane’s probity (we’ll leave that to the police, shall we?). But let’s not forgive his frankly disgusting equation of Nazi Germany with the Government’s response to the riots in Britain a fortnight ago – and rather than react to them in his own terms, let’s consider why he would want to make such an unpleasant remark, and, more importantly, why he knows he can get away with it.
Labour MPs like Mr MacShane can set themselves up as ethical judges of anyone who questions the Human Rights Act, and its cultural consequences, because language lets them. Conservatives never seem to understand the importance of language as much as their opponents do; because of this they consistently lose every cultural battle of consequence.
The words used to describe a law ultimately control the parameters of the debate which polite society will permit about it, even if the words so used have almost no connection with the object they attempt to describe. The Human Rights Act should really be entitled The “Incorporation into UK law of the right for citizens to sue the government in a British court, in the kinds of cases that used to be heard in a faintly quaint institution which doesn’t resemble a British court in constitution or practice, and which we could safely ignore” Act. To support the repeal of that would be applauded. To speak out against the same thing, once it is named “the Human Rights Act”, is not: Denis MacShane is not a fool. He knows exactly the mood he wants to create, and how to use language to create it.
Which government ministers are the most successful? Surely Iain Duncan Smith at welfare, and Michael Gove at education. Not only are their policies effective and in tune with majority opinion, but they have also found a language which is hard to attack from the Left. IDS talks of the immorality of abandoning a person on benefits, turning a debate about workfare into a Good Samaritan duty. Gove speaks angrily about the scandal of under-performing schools, and the young lives they blight, which leaves his teaching union opponents looking selfish. Other Conservatives should learn from them: mimicking the Left’s language (about “diversity” and so on) is not a game a Tory can ever win. But if you choose the language of the fight yourself, you’re more than half way there.
Now answer the question we opened with. The only acceptable public answer is “Of course I am in favour of human rights”. But honestly? “Usually, I am. Sometimes, I am not. Not when such 'rights’ are used to demand votes for prisoners, or to prevent foreign killers from being expelled from the country. Furthermore, I refuse to accept the Left’s insistence that the laws which govern all of human interaction can be codified into a text which will never contradict itself, and which should be immune to criticism, just because they gave it a nice-sounding name.”
It’s not (only) knowledge that is power, in the old phrase; it’s language, too. There may one day be a government, free of the baleful influence of the Liberal Democrats, which deletes the Human Rights Act from the statute book and reappraises our relationship with bodies such as the Council of Europe. But what if it turns out that the Act was a symptom, and not a cause?
A culture or a party which uses language to end political debate is far more chilling than any single legislative act. Denis MacShane understands this. That’s why he will call you a Nazi if you dare to disagree with him: because he knows that he can.
Comment: The Nazi author fails to explain why human beings, which prisoners are, should be denied their human rights.
Deputy PM Nick Clegg defends UK human rights laws
Deputy PM Nick Clegg defends UK human rights laws
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has defended the UK's human rights laws, saying they have done much to protect the vulnerable and the powerless.
Writing in the Guardian, he said governments had "belittled" and "trashed" such laws in recent years.
However, Mr Clegg said the Human Rights Act was often manipulated and called for a "sensible discussion" about how it should be interpreted in future.
The Conservatives want to scrap the act and replace it with a Bill of Rights.
However, in his article, Mr Clegg rejected repealing the act and said the Liberal Democrat position was that any potential Bill of Rights would bolster current laws and "protect other British liberties, such as the right to jury trial."
Last week Prime Minister David Cameron pledged to "get a grip" on cases where the current laws were used inappropriately.
The prime minister said that people should "understand the real scope of these rights and not use them as a cover for rules or excuses that fly in the face of common sense".
Agreeing with Mr Cameron, the Lib Dem leader said the "biggest problem" was that the Human Right Act is sometimes "manipulated not just by the media but by over-cautious officials" who use it to justify their decisions.
"It was, for example, of no help to anyone when police spokespeople blamed human rights for a decision to deliver a KFC meal to a fugitive on a roof," said Mr Clegg.
Responsibilities 'myth'
But, despite this, the deputy PM argues that human rights legislation in the UK has done much good and should be protected.
"[It has] been instrumental in preventing local authorities from snooping on law-abiding families, in removing innocent people from the national DNA database, in preventing rapists from cross-examining their victims in court, in defending the rights of parents to have a say in the medical treatment of their children."
Mr Clegg also rejected as a "myth" the view that people should lose human rights protection in some cases.
"[It] panders to a view that no rights, not even the most basic, come without responsibilities", he said, and that "criminals ought to forfeit their very humanity the moment they step out of line."
The European Convention on Human Rights protections - such as the right to a private and family life and freedom of expression - became directly enforceable in UK courts in 2000 via the Human Rights Act.
In his article, Mr Clegg also said the UK would seek to reform the European Court of Human Rights when it takes over chairmanship of the Council of Europe in November - in order to improve the speed and consistency of the court's decisions.
Campaigners have welcomed Mr Clegg's words.
Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti said: "This is a welcome intervention from the deputy prime minister and certainly not before time.
"The coalition was stitched together on a civil liberties ticket. You can't talk human rights in the Arab spring whilst trashing them at home all year round."
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has defended the UK's human rights laws, saying they have done much to protect the vulnerable and the powerless.
Writing in the Guardian, he said governments had "belittled" and "trashed" such laws in recent years.
However, Mr Clegg said the Human Rights Act was often manipulated and called for a "sensible discussion" about how it should be interpreted in future.
The Conservatives want to scrap the act and replace it with a Bill of Rights.
However, in his article, Mr Clegg rejected repealing the act and said the Liberal Democrat position was that any potential Bill of Rights would bolster current laws and "protect other British liberties, such as the right to jury trial."
Last week Prime Minister David Cameron pledged to "get a grip" on cases where the current laws were used inappropriately.
The prime minister said that people should "understand the real scope of these rights and not use them as a cover for rules or excuses that fly in the face of common sense".
Agreeing with Mr Cameron, the Lib Dem leader said the "biggest problem" was that the Human Right Act is sometimes "manipulated not just by the media but by over-cautious officials" who use it to justify their decisions.
"It was, for example, of no help to anyone when police spokespeople blamed human rights for a decision to deliver a KFC meal to a fugitive on a roof," said Mr Clegg.
Responsibilities 'myth'
But, despite this, the deputy PM argues that human rights legislation in the UK has done much good and should be protected.
"[It has] been instrumental in preventing local authorities from snooping on law-abiding families, in removing innocent people from the national DNA database, in preventing rapists from cross-examining their victims in court, in defending the rights of parents to have a say in the medical treatment of their children."
Mr Clegg also rejected as a "myth" the view that people should lose human rights protection in some cases.
"[It] panders to a view that no rights, not even the most basic, come without responsibilities", he said, and that "criminals ought to forfeit their very humanity the moment they step out of line."
The European Convention on Human Rights protections - such as the right to a private and family life and freedom of expression - became directly enforceable in UK courts in 2000 via the Human Rights Act.
In his article, Mr Clegg also said the UK would seek to reform the European Court of Human Rights when it takes over chairmanship of the Council of Europe in November - in order to improve the speed and consistency of the court's decisions.
Campaigners have welcomed Mr Clegg's words.
Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti said: "This is a welcome intervention from the deputy prime minister and certainly not before time.
"The coalition was stitched together on a civil liberties ticket. You can't talk human rights in the Arab spring whilst trashing them at home all year round."
Nick Clegg pledges to defend human rights laws
Nick Clegg pledges to defend human rights laws
Nick Clegg has opened up a new rift in the Coalition by pledging to resist Conservative attempts to change human rights laws in the wake of this month’s riots.
By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent, Daily Telegraph, 7:00AM BST 26 Aug 2011
The Deputy Prime Minister said it is a "myth" that Britain’s human rights laws are harmful and insisted that they must not be abandoned.
Mr Clegg’s argument, set out in a newspaper article, is at odds with David Cameron’s views.
In the wake of the disturbances in London and other English cities earlier this month, the Prime Minister signalled a fresh move to challenge the Human Rights Act, declaring that he would not be restrained by "phoney human rights" concerns.
The legislation, which enacts the European Charter on Human Rights, is blamed by many Conservatives for problems in the criminal justice system. Critics say that over-zealous application of the law leads the police and other authorities to put too much emphasis on the rights of criminals and suspects, and not enough on the needs of victims.
Without naming Mr Cameron, Mr Clegg criticised people who have allowed "a myth to take root that human rights are a foreign invention, unwanted here, a charter for greedy lawyers and meddlesome bureaucrats."
He added: "This myth panders to a view that no rights, not even the most basic, come without responsibilities; that criminals ought to forfeit their very humanity the moment they step out of line; and that the punishment of lawbreakers ought not to be restrained by due process."
This is not Mr Clegg’s first dispute with Mr Cameron over human rights laws.
The Deputy Prime Minister has an ongoing disagreement with his Conservative colleagues over the issue of votes for prisoners.
After a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights – which oversees the charter – Britain is obliged to let prisoners vote in general elections.
A majority of MPs have opposed that change, and Mr Cameron has said he will listen to the Commons.
However, Mr Clegg – supported by Kenneth Clarke, the Conservative Justice Secretary – is insisting that Britain has no choice but to accept the court judgement and allow at least some prisoners to vote.
Mr Clegg accepted that some aspects of the court must be changed, but insisted that there is no question of the UK pulling out of the convention.
Some Conservatives want the UK to pull out of the convention, but Mr Clegg said that must not happen: "As we continue to promote human rights abroad, we must ensure we work to uphold them here at home. We have a record we should be proud of and never abandon."
The Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights have been "instrumental" to protecting British civil liberties, he said.
Nick Clegg has opened up a new rift in the Coalition by pledging to resist Conservative attempts to change human rights laws in the wake of this month’s riots.
By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent, Daily Telegraph, 7:00AM BST 26 Aug 2011
The Deputy Prime Minister said it is a "myth" that Britain’s human rights laws are harmful and insisted that they must not be abandoned.
Mr Clegg’s argument, set out in a newspaper article, is at odds with David Cameron’s views.
In the wake of the disturbances in London and other English cities earlier this month, the Prime Minister signalled a fresh move to challenge the Human Rights Act, declaring that he would not be restrained by "phoney human rights" concerns.
The legislation, which enacts the European Charter on Human Rights, is blamed by many Conservatives for problems in the criminal justice system. Critics say that over-zealous application of the law leads the police and other authorities to put too much emphasis on the rights of criminals and suspects, and not enough on the needs of victims.
Without naming Mr Cameron, Mr Clegg criticised people who have allowed "a myth to take root that human rights are a foreign invention, unwanted here, a charter for greedy lawyers and meddlesome bureaucrats."
He added: "This myth panders to a view that no rights, not even the most basic, come without responsibilities; that criminals ought to forfeit their very humanity the moment they step out of line; and that the punishment of lawbreakers ought not to be restrained by due process."
This is not Mr Clegg’s first dispute with Mr Cameron over human rights laws.
The Deputy Prime Minister has an ongoing disagreement with his Conservative colleagues over the issue of votes for prisoners.
After a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights – which oversees the charter – Britain is obliged to let prisoners vote in general elections.
A majority of MPs have opposed that change, and Mr Cameron has said he will listen to the Commons.
However, Mr Clegg – supported by Kenneth Clarke, the Conservative Justice Secretary – is insisting that Britain has no choice but to accept the court judgement and allow at least some prisoners to vote.
Mr Clegg accepted that some aspects of the court must be changed, but insisted that there is no question of the UK pulling out of the convention.
Some Conservatives want the UK to pull out of the convention, but Mr Clegg said that must not happen: "As we continue to promote human rights abroad, we must ensure we work to uphold them here at home. We have a record we should be proud of and never abandon."
The Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights have been "instrumental" to protecting British civil liberties, he said.
Nick Clegg: I will refuse to let human rights laws be weakened
Nick Clegg: I will refuse to let human rights laws be weakened
Deputy prime minister says Liberal Democrats will not let Tories water down human rights laws
Allegra Stratton, political correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 25 August 2011 21.31 BST
Nick Clegg says his party will not Conservatives water down human rights laws. Photograph: David Cheskin/PA
Nick Clegg has issued a trenchant defence of human rights laws, setting out their strengths and saying his party will not let Conservatives water them down should there be a fresh push to renegotiate legislation.
In an article for the Guardian, the deputy prime minister acknowledges much common ground with the prime minister, David Cameron, who in recent weeks has increasingly given voice to the frustrations of cabinet ministers, MPs and his activist base that European human rights legislation has overruled British courts and must be renegotiated. A European ruling earlier this year that prisoners must be given the vote despite parliament voting for the opposite infuriated Conservatives.
Writing at the weekend, Cameron said: "Though it won't be easy, though it will mean taking on parts of the establishment, I am determined we get a grip on the misrepresentation of human rights.
"We are looking at creating our own British bill of rights. We are going to fight in Europe for changes to the way the European court works and we will fight to ensure people understand the real scope of these rights and do not use them as cover for rules or excuses that fly in the face of common sense."
Clegg agrees there is a problem with "misrepresentation" of what rights people enjoy and says he supports government moves to reform the European court of human rights.
But his article is different in emphasis from the prime minister's and represents the first restatement that his party will not brook a profound renegotiation of Britain's relationship with the Strasbourg court. Clegg describes the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic legislation under the human rights act as "a hugely positive step". He writes: "As we continue to promote human rights abroad, we must ensure we work to uphold them here at home. We have a record we should be proud of and never abandon."
While Cameron was careful to criticise the interpretation, he is under pressure from his activists to go radically further, with some voices calling for a complete withdrawal.
The home secretary, Theresa May, said in a speech last month that she would be arguing for a new definition of article 8 of the European convention, which guarantees the right to a private and family life.
By contrast, Clegg says: "Court judgements themselves tend to tell a very different story about our rights culture than tabloid papers. The Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights have been instrumental in preventing local authorities from snooping on law-abiding families, in removing innocent people from the national DNA database, in preventing rapists from cross-examining their victims in court, in defending the rights of parents to have a say in the medical treatment of their children, in holding local authorities to account where they have failed to protect children from abuse, in protecting the anonymity of journalists' sources, and in upholding the rights of elderly married couples to be cared for together in care homes."
Clegg also appears to implicitly criticise Cameron's satisfaction with tough "exemplary" sentences for those involved in the riots alongside backing families of rioters losing council homes and benefits.
Defending the concept of human rights in his article, Clegg says that a view is being pandered to that believes no rights come without responsibilities and that "a criminal ought to forfeit their very humanity the moment they step out of line, and that the punishment of lawbreakers ought not to be restrained by due process".
In November the justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, will push for "important operational changes" to the ECHR when Britain takes over the chairmanship of the Council of Europe. Separately, Clarke and Clegg head a commission into the establishment of a British bill of rights which would redefine the UK's obligation under the ECHR. The commission is thought to be split down the middle over whether or not to repeal the Human Rights Act.
In order to sate the desires of the Tory backbench, a separate commission has been set up which will produce a distinctively Conservative position on the ECHR before the next general election.
Deputy prime minister says Liberal Democrats will not let Tories water down human rights laws
Allegra Stratton, political correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 25 August 2011 21.31 BST
Nick Clegg says his party will not Conservatives water down human rights laws. Photograph: David Cheskin/PA
Nick Clegg has issued a trenchant defence of human rights laws, setting out their strengths and saying his party will not let Conservatives water them down should there be a fresh push to renegotiate legislation.
In an article for the Guardian, the deputy prime minister acknowledges much common ground with the prime minister, David Cameron, who in recent weeks has increasingly given voice to the frustrations of cabinet ministers, MPs and his activist base that European human rights legislation has overruled British courts and must be renegotiated. A European ruling earlier this year that prisoners must be given the vote despite parliament voting for the opposite infuriated Conservatives.
Writing at the weekend, Cameron said: "Though it won't be easy, though it will mean taking on parts of the establishment, I am determined we get a grip on the misrepresentation of human rights.
"We are looking at creating our own British bill of rights. We are going to fight in Europe for changes to the way the European court works and we will fight to ensure people understand the real scope of these rights and do not use them as cover for rules or excuses that fly in the face of common sense."
Clegg agrees there is a problem with "misrepresentation" of what rights people enjoy and says he supports government moves to reform the European court of human rights.
But his article is different in emphasis from the prime minister's and represents the first restatement that his party will not brook a profound renegotiation of Britain's relationship with the Strasbourg court. Clegg describes the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic legislation under the human rights act as "a hugely positive step". He writes: "As we continue to promote human rights abroad, we must ensure we work to uphold them here at home. We have a record we should be proud of and never abandon."
While Cameron was careful to criticise the interpretation, he is under pressure from his activists to go radically further, with some voices calling for a complete withdrawal.
The home secretary, Theresa May, said in a speech last month that she would be arguing for a new definition of article 8 of the European convention, which guarantees the right to a private and family life.
By contrast, Clegg says: "Court judgements themselves tend to tell a very different story about our rights culture than tabloid papers. The Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights have been instrumental in preventing local authorities from snooping on law-abiding families, in removing innocent people from the national DNA database, in preventing rapists from cross-examining their victims in court, in defending the rights of parents to have a say in the medical treatment of their children, in holding local authorities to account where they have failed to protect children from abuse, in protecting the anonymity of journalists' sources, and in upholding the rights of elderly married couples to be cared for together in care homes."
Clegg also appears to implicitly criticise Cameron's satisfaction with tough "exemplary" sentences for those involved in the riots alongside backing families of rioters losing council homes and benefits.
Defending the concept of human rights in his article, Clegg says that a view is being pandered to that believes no rights come without responsibilities and that "a criminal ought to forfeit their very humanity the moment they step out of line, and that the punishment of lawbreakers ought not to be restrained by due process".
In November the justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, will push for "important operational changes" to the ECHR when Britain takes over the chairmanship of the Council of Europe. Separately, Clarke and Clegg head a commission into the establishment of a British bill of rights which would redefine the UK's obligation under the ECHR. The commission is thought to be split down the middle over whether or not to repeal the Human Rights Act.
In order to sate the desires of the Tory backbench, a separate commission has been set up which will produce a distinctively Conservative position on the ECHR before the next general election.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
The right to vote is the cornerstone of democracy
The right to vote is the cornerstone of democracy
August 25, 2011
Malaysia
Former ISA detainee Kengadharan says that not allowing prisoners and detainees to vote is a serious violation of human rights.
By R Kengadharan
The setting up of the Parliamentary Select Committee on electoral reforms is to be welcomed. This is necessary so as to reach consensus in facing the next general election without any suspicion or perceived manipulation and the PSC may dispel any misconception.
Any electoral reforms undertaken upon recommendation will enhance and strengthen our own peculiar parliamentary democracy and such reforms are necessary so as to monitor behaviours and actions of political parties and their candidates.
No political party should be allowed to gain an unfair and vulgar advantage in an election and every form of manipulation and institutionalised fraud (if any) must be vigorously condemned and rejected.
Any violations or breaches must be dealt with sternly and if necessary disqualify the candidate.
However, prior to holding the general election it is necessary for the government to clean up the electoral roll.
Lately there have been serious allegations of foreigners, dead people , phantom voters and permanent residents given voting rights and if not investigated it could effectively undermine and threaten our parliamentary democracy.
The Election Commission in their commitment to parliamentary democracy, fair play, good governance and transparency must consider and study the use of indelible ink and the use of a biometric system.
I urge that this system must be made mandatory and the Federal Constitution must be amended to facilitate the above and the suggestion put forward by the Election Commission is quite encouraging for it would be subjected to scrutiny by political parties/agents.
In addition to the above, the Election Commission has a legal obligation to let/allow prisoners and detainees to vote in general elections and by- elections and the present blanket ban is completely illogical, certainly discriminatory and a serious violation of human rights.
The continued reluctance not to allow prisoners and detainees to vote is a most serious offence.
For instance in the United Kingdom prisoners in remand awaiting trial, fine, defaulters and people jailed for contempt of Court are permitted to vote.
It must never be forgotten that the right to vote is the cornerstone of a democracy and any laws that prevent anyone from voting could upset the political process.
No democratic process can and should disenfranchise its citizens right to vote and in Malaysia the Election Commission must successfully dismantle this prohibition permanently.
R Kengadharan is a lawyer and an ex-ISA detainee
August 25, 2011
Malaysia
Former ISA detainee Kengadharan says that not allowing prisoners and detainees to vote is a serious violation of human rights.
By R Kengadharan
The setting up of the Parliamentary Select Committee on electoral reforms is to be welcomed. This is necessary so as to reach consensus in facing the next general election without any suspicion or perceived manipulation and the PSC may dispel any misconception.
Any electoral reforms undertaken upon recommendation will enhance and strengthen our own peculiar parliamentary democracy and such reforms are necessary so as to monitor behaviours and actions of political parties and their candidates.
No political party should be allowed to gain an unfair and vulgar advantage in an election and every form of manipulation and institutionalised fraud (if any) must be vigorously condemned and rejected.
Any violations or breaches must be dealt with sternly and if necessary disqualify the candidate.
However, prior to holding the general election it is necessary for the government to clean up the electoral roll.
Lately there have been serious allegations of foreigners, dead people , phantom voters and permanent residents given voting rights and if not investigated it could effectively undermine and threaten our parliamentary democracy.
The Election Commission in their commitment to parliamentary democracy, fair play, good governance and transparency must consider and study the use of indelible ink and the use of a biometric system.
I urge that this system must be made mandatory and the Federal Constitution must be amended to facilitate the above and the suggestion put forward by the Election Commission is quite encouraging for it would be subjected to scrutiny by political parties/agents.
In addition to the above, the Election Commission has a legal obligation to let/allow prisoners and detainees to vote in general elections and by- elections and the present blanket ban is completely illogical, certainly discriminatory and a serious violation of human rights.
The continued reluctance not to allow prisoners and detainees to vote is a most serious offence.
For instance in the United Kingdom prisoners in remand awaiting trial, fine, defaulters and people jailed for contempt of Court are permitted to vote.
It must never be forgotten that the right to vote is the cornerstone of a democracy and any laws that prevent anyone from voting could upset the political process.
No democratic process can and should disenfranchise its citizens right to vote and in Malaysia the Election Commission must successfully dismantle this prohibition permanently.
R Kengadharan is a lawyer and an ex-ISA detainee
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Jammin
Jammin
Today I went collecting blackberries to make jam. I also made a blackberry and cream pasty for some of my neighbours.
Today I went collecting blackberries to make jam. I also made a blackberry and cream pasty for some of my neighbours.
Daily Express and Priti Patel caught out lying again!
Daily Express and Priti Patel caught out lying again!
According to the lying Daily Express 65% SAY: BRING BACK HANGING
The racist Daily Express refers to the racist Paul Staines petition to back up its false claim. However, it conveniently fails to mention that far more have signed the petition to retain the ban on capital punishment. The racist Daily Express obtains a quote from the racist Priti Patel "I’m not surprised there is such overwhelming support for the return of capital punishment". Perhaps she should check her facts before opening her stupid big mouth in future? She may be surprised to learn that the overwhelming support is against the return of capital punishment.
Petition to retain the ban on Capital Punishment
BNP blogger Paul Staines Restore Capital Punishment petition
According to the lying Daily Express 65% SAY: BRING BACK HANGING
The racist Daily Express refers to the racist Paul Staines petition to back up its false claim. However, it conveniently fails to mention that far more have signed the petition to retain the ban on capital punishment. The racist Daily Express obtains a quote from the racist Priti Patel "I’m not surprised there is such overwhelming support for the return of capital punishment". Perhaps she should check her facts before opening her stupid big mouth in future? She may be surprised to learn that the overwhelming support is against the return of capital punishment.
Petition to retain the ban on Capital Punishment
BNP blogger Paul Staines Restore Capital Punishment petition
Ann Widdecombe: Silly old moo!
Ann Widdecombe: Silly old moo!
DAVID CAMERON SHOULD LISTEN TO PUBLIC
By Ann Widdecombe, Daily Express, Wednesday 24 August 2011
IT is reported that David Cameron is meeting resistance from coalition colleagues in his determination to reform our barmy human rights laws.
If that is true then he should call their bluff because Britain is thoroughly fed up with what he has rightly described as the “wrong-headed ideas, bureaucratic nonsense and destructive culture” of the human rights laws without which we managed perfectly well until Blair decided to take us in to this silly convention.
It will not be Nick Clegg whose vote the PM will need at the next election but that of the British public. He should tell his wimpish coalition partner just that and take some immediate and decisive action.
Comment: Are the public actually saying anything in relation to human rights? All I have heard or read has come from ill-informed politicians and the media. My view is that David Cameron is trying to get public support for his stupid idea to abolish the Human Rights Act 1998.
Perhaps, Ann Widdecombe needs a gentle reminder that the Tory party did not get the public support necessary for an overall majority at the last general election. Power was shared by forming a coalition government with the LibDems. The public did not vote for the Tory manifesto promise to scrap the Human Rights Act. Certainly such a barmy idea did not feature in the LibDem manifesto. The LibDems are in favour of human rights. Therefore it is not surprising that David Cameron's tyrannical idea is meeting with resistance from the LibDems. It is a fallacy for Ann Widdecombe to claim that our human rights laws are barmy. Parliament legislated for the Human Rights Act.
Ann Widdecombe fails to produce any evidence to support her claim that Britain is fed up with the idea of human rights. It was only last week that David Cameron came out with his wrong-headed ideas in a speech he gave to his constituents in Witney. She states that David Cameron should call the LibDems bluff. However, it was as recently as 11 April 2011 that the European Court of Human Rights called the UK's bluff on the issue of convicted prisoners human right to vote. The ECtHR has given the UK until 11 October 2011 to bring forward proposals to amend the law to allow convicted prisoners to vote. As this deadline draws nearer I can understand why David Cameron is getting jittery at the prospect of having to announce his major U Turn on the issue. Ann Widdecombe is wrong-headed to claim that Tony Blair decided to take us into the European Convention on Human Rights. Clement Attlee, the Labour Prime Minister, signed up the UK to the ECHR on 4 November 1950. The Convention entered into force on 3 September 1953, and Winston Churchill was the Tory Prime Minister. It is silly of Ann Widdecombe to claim that the Convention is silly given that it was largely drafted by UK lawyers, and designed to protect individuals from abuse of power by the State.
There is nothing wimpish about standing up for human rights. It takes courage to defy those seeking to turn Britain into a totalitarian or authoritarian State.
DAVID CAMERON SHOULD LISTEN TO PUBLIC
By Ann Widdecombe, Daily Express, Wednesday 24 August 2011
IT is reported that David Cameron is meeting resistance from coalition colleagues in his determination to reform our barmy human rights laws.
If that is true then he should call their bluff because Britain is thoroughly fed up with what he has rightly described as the “wrong-headed ideas, bureaucratic nonsense and destructive culture” of the human rights laws without which we managed perfectly well until Blair decided to take us in to this silly convention.
It will not be Nick Clegg whose vote the PM will need at the next election but that of the British public. He should tell his wimpish coalition partner just that and take some immediate and decisive action.
Comment: Are the public actually saying anything in relation to human rights? All I have heard or read has come from ill-informed politicians and the media. My view is that David Cameron is trying to get public support for his stupid idea to abolish the Human Rights Act 1998.
Perhaps, Ann Widdecombe needs a gentle reminder that the Tory party did not get the public support necessary for an overall majority at the last general election. Power was shared by forming a coalition government with the LibDems. The public did not vote for the Tory manifesto promise to scrap the Human Rights Act. Certainly such a barmy idea did not feature in the LibDem manifesto. The LibDems are in favour of human rights. Therefore it is not surprising that David Cameron's tyrannical idea is meeting with resistance from the LibDems. It is a fallacy for Ann Widdecombe to claim that our human rights laws are barmy. Parliament legislated for the Human Rights Act.
Ann Widdecombe fails to produce any evidence to support her claim that Britain is fed up with the idea of human rights. It was only last week that David Cameron came out with his wrong-headed ideas in a speech he gave to his constituents in Witney. She states that David Cameron should call the LibDems bluff. However, it was as recently as 11 April 2011 that the European Court of Human Rights called the UK's bluff on the issue of convicted prisoners human right to vote. The ECtHR has given the UK until 11 October 2011 to bring forward proposals to amend the law to allow convicted prisoners to vote. As this deadline draws nearer I can understand why David Cameron is getting jittery at the prospect of having to announce his major U Turn on the issue. Ann Widdecombe is wrong-headed to claim that Tony Blair decided to take us into the European Convention on Human Rights. Clement Attlee, the Labour Prime Minister, signed up the UK to the ECHR on 4 November 1950. The Convention entered into force on 3 September 1953, and Winston Churchill was the Tory Prime Minister. It is silly of Ann Widdecombe to claim that the Convention is silly given that it was largely drafted by UK lawyers, and designed to protect individuals from abuse of power by the State.
There is nothing wimpish about standing up for human rights. It takes courage to defy those seeking to turn Britain into a totalitarian or authoritarian State.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Nisa: If it sounds too good to be true...
Nisa: If it sounds too good to be true...
I have just popped into my local Nisa. I thought the above offer to be good value (even though I don't know what kind of fish the 100% fillet is). Nisa does not have any in stock, even though it states "All offers available from 22nd August - 11th September 2011". Underneath it states "Unless otherwise stated". On the back in small print it states "All offers subject to availability".
Perhaps, Nisa will provide an explanation why the offer being offered is not available?
Update: NisaLocally has responded via Twitter
"Sorry that you couldn't get the products from your local store. All of our stores are independently run and we have no control over the store's stock levels. Hopefully they will have the product that you're looking for now".
Well, they did not this morning (25 Aug) when I looked in...
I have just popped into my local Nisa. I thought the above offer to be good value (even though I don't know what kind of fish the 100% fillet is). Nisa does not have any in stock, even though it states "All offers available from 22nd August - 11th September 2011". Underneath it states "Unless otherwise stated". On the back in small print it states "All offers subject to availability".
Perhaps, Nisa will provide an explanation why the offer being offered is not available?
Update: NisaLocally has responded via Twitter
"Sorry that you couldn't get the products from your local store. All of our stores are independently run and we have no control over the store's stock levels. Hopefully they will have the product that you're looking for now".
Well, they did not this morning (25 Aug) when I looked in...
Bill of Rights from a Pantomime Horse?
Bill of Rights from a Pantomime Horse?
By Nicholas Dobson, Thursday, 18 August 2011
Despite the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility, coalition governments can sometimes seem a bit like a pantomime horse. One, that is, where the two occupants are pulling hard in different directions.
So attempts to create unity from this diversity can sometimes appear a little strained. And particularly so when one or other side of the horse sticks out a head to yell an unscripted personal message to the audience (e.g. criticism from Business, Innovation and Skills Secretary, Vince Cable, about Prime Ministerial remarks on immigration).
So it’s not surprising that the human rights scepticism of many Conservative Coalition members and their desire to deal with perceived problems with the Human Rights Act by a British Bill of Rights was tempered by Liberal Democrat elements who generally view UK human rights law with a deal more enthusiasm. And these divergent pantomime horse forces are noticeable in the terms of reference of the Discussion Paper issued on 5 August 2011 by the Commission on a Bill of Rights (CBR), entitled: Do we need a UK Bill of Rights?
The notion of a Bill of Rights formed part of the 2010 Conservative Party manifesto: Invitation to Join the Government of Britain. On page 79 the Party pledged to: “protect our freedoms from state encroachment and encourage greater social responsibility, we will replace the Human Rights Act with a UK Bill of Rights”.
However, a liberal dash of water was added to the mix in the May 2010 Coalition agreement which undertook to: “…establish a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law, and protects and extends British liberties. We will seek to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties.”
No doubt the Liberal Democrat side of the pantomime horse was fed the pledge to “build on” current Convention obligations, to ensure their continuation and to protect and extend British liberties. And presumably it was the larger Conservative part which sought (in a relatively muted whinny) “to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties”.
This text formed the basis of the first two paragraphs of the CBR terms of reference, the others being:
“To provide advice to the Government on the ongoing Interlaken process to reform the Strasbourg court ahead of and following the UK’s Chairmanship of the Council of Europe.”
“To consult, including with the public, judiciary and devolved administrations and legislatures, and aim to report no later than by the end of 2012.”
The CBR are seeking views on the issue of a UK Bill of Rights by 11 November 2011 at: responses@commissiononabillofrights.gsi.gov.uk .
The European Convention on Human Rights
UK human rights are of course a creature of the European Convention on Human Rights which was given domestic expression by the Human Rights Act 1998. The Convention (which the UK was the first state to ratify on 8 March 1951) was formulated against the backdrop of the appalling atrocities of World War II and the human rights abuses then becoming apparent in the Soviet bloc. However, whilst containing unexceptionable universal statements of principle, many of these have become controversial in practice in the light of the evolving jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and decisions of UK courts and tribunals which have adopted a similar approach.
Whilst this has many enthusiasts, there is an equally strong body of opinion that such judicial decisions are strongly and counter-intuitively contrary to UK cultural norms and can sometimes appear to reward those who do the wrong thing. Numerous examples have been highlighted in the press. These include the votes for prisoners case (Hirst v. UK (No 2) [2005] ECHR 681) the contemplation of which David Cameron has said made him “physically ill” and the decision of the ECHR in Sufi and Elmi v. UK (Applications nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07) (where, according to the Daily Telegraph, the Home Office was “….unable to deport more than 200 Somali immigrants, most of them criminals, after judges in Strasbourg decided that sending them home would breach Article 3 of the convention, which bans inhumane treatment”).
Whilst many lawyers are keen champions for the present human rights regime, equally there are critics. Celebrated amongst these is former Law Lord, Lord Hoffman (who has, amongst other things, been Director and Chairperson of Amnesty International Charity Limited). In his 19 March 2009 Judicial Studies Board Annual Lecture, whilst taking no issue with the Convention itself as “a perfectly serviceable abstract statement of the rights which individuals in a civilised society should enjoy” and the text of which is “perfectly acceptable to adopt. . .as a United Kingdom constitutional instrument”, he nevertheless expressed concerns about “the mechanism adopted by the Convention for the application of these abstractions to concrete problems”.
He was of course referring to the ECHR. In his view the local application of these abstract principles “requires trade-offs and compromises, exercises of judgment which can be made only in the context of a given society and its legal system”. And whilst the ECHR gives some recognition to national legal self-determination in the ‘margin of appreciation’ doctrine, the ECHR “has been unable to resist the temptation to aggrandise its jurisdiction and to impose uniform rules on Member States”. In Lord Hoffman’s view, the ECHR “considers itself the equivalent of the Supreme Court of the United States, laying down a federal law of Europe”.
Lord Hoffman also wrote a supportive Foreword to the 7 February 2011 Policy Exchange Paper: Bringing Rights Back Home. Written by Dr. Michael Pinto-Duschinsky (who is also a CBR Commissioner) the Paper “identifies key weaknesses in the current arrangements and recommends a series of political reforms to create a new constitutional settlement – one that guarantees the place of core human rights in national life, while helping to check judicial activism and protect parliamentary democracy”.
The Paper argues that the: ‘time has now come for the UK government to consider whether or not it wishes to remain tied to an inefficient, unaccountable and remote court, or whether our own constitutional reforms have done enough to ensure that the British judiciary is itself capable of considering these questions as the final appellate court”.
It therefore suggests that the UK Government begins negotiations with the Council of Europe (time-limited to two years) regarding substantial reforms to the ECHR. If the negotiations fail, argues the Paper, “then the UK should consider withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights”. For the: “….UK is a mature and long established democracy and, along with the vast majority of other nations, is capable of appointing judges to determine its own human rights law.” And whilst the “…..UK should retain the text of the European Convention of Human Rights in UK law….judges would be free to develop a distinctive UK human rights jurisprudence, as cases are presented that allow them to re-consider the Convention in the context of British political culture as well as the provisions of the proposed British Bill of Rights”.
Not surprisingly, ECHR President, Jean-Paul Costa, does not support a British Bill of Rights. In a June 2010 Guardian interview he was quoted as saying that the “project of returning the court to British rule is a bad idea”. And the introduction of a British Bill of Rights could mean that not all Convention rights are protected. And this “could create divergencies between the [Strasbourg] case law and the law in the UK”.
The application of human rights law is an emotive issue on which many people hold passionately different views. However, the arguments of both Lord Hoffman and Michael Pinto-Duschinsky are cogent and deserve serious consideration. As the latter is represented on the CBR (along with more obvious sympathisers with the current human rights position) the different viewpoints should be well-ventilated and the responses to the Consultation weighed against a range of perspectives.
But whatever the consultation outcome, it is unlikely that, on this issue at least, the Coalition pantomime horse will find itself able to trot contentedly in the one direction.
Dr. Nicholas Dobson is a Senior Consultant with Pannone LLP specialising in local and public law is also Communications Officer for the Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors.
By Nicholas Dobson, Thursday, 18 August 2011
Despite the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility, coalition governments can sometimes seem a bit like a pantomime horse. One, that is, where the two occupants are pulling hard in different directions.
So attempts to create unity from this diversity can sometimes appear a little strained. And particularly so when one or other side of the horse sticks out a head to yell an unscripted personal message to the audience (e.g. criticism from Business, Innovation and Skills Secretary, Vince Cable, about Prime Ministerial remarks on immigration).
So it’s not surprising that the human rights scepticism of many Conservative Coalition members and their desire to deal with perceived problems with the Human Rights Act by a British Bill of Rights was tempered by Liberal Democrat elements who generally view UK human rights law with a deal more enthusiasm. And these divergent pantomime horse forces are noticeable in the terms of reference of the Discussion Paper issued on 5 August 2011 by the Commission on a Bill of Rights (CBR), entitled: Do we need a UK Bill of Rights?
The notion of a Bill of Rights formed part of the 2010 Conservative Party manifesto: Invitation to Join the Government of Britain. On page 79 the Party pledged to: “protect our freedoms from state encroachment and encourage greater social responsibility, we will replace the Human Rights Act with a UK Bill of Rights”.
However, a liberal dash of water was added to the mix in the May 2010 Coalition agreement which undertook to: “…establish a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law, and protects and extends British liberties. We will seek to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties.”
No doubt the Liberal Democrat side of the pantomime horse was fed the pledge to “build on” current Convention obligations, to ensure their continuation and to protect and extend British liberties. And presumably it was the larger Conservative part which sought (in a relatively muted whinny) “to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties”.
This text formed the basis of the first two paragraphs of the CBR terms of reference, the others being:
“To provide advice to the Government on the ongoing Interlaken process to reform the Strasbourg court ahead of and following the UK’s Chairmanship of the Council of Europe.”
“To consult, including with the public, judiciary and devolved administrations and legislatures, and aim to report no later than by the end of 2012.”
The CBR are seeking views on the issue of a UK Bill of Rights by 11 November 2011 at: responses@commissiononabillofrights.gsi.gov.uk .
The European Convention on Human Rights
UK human rights are of course a creature of the European Convention on Human Rights which was given domestic expression by the Human Rights Act 1998. The Convention (which the UK was the first state to ratify on 8 March 1951) was formulated against the backdrop of the appalling atrocities of World War II and the human rights abuses then becoming apparent in the Soviet bloc. However, whilst containing unexceptionable universal statements of principle, many of these have become controversial in practice in the light of the evolving jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and decisions of UK courts and tribunals which have adopted a similar approach.
Whilst this has many enthusiasts, there is an equally strong body of opinion that such judicial decisions are strongly and counter-intuitively contrary to UK cultural norms and can sometimes appear to reward those who do the wrong thing. Numerous examples have been highlighted in the press. These include the votes for prisoners case (Hirst v. UK (No 2) [2005] ECHR 681) the contemplation of which David Cameron has said made him “physically ill” and the decision of the ECHR in Sufi and Elmi v. UK (Applications nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07) (where, according to the Daily Telegraph, the Home Office was “….unable to deport more than 200 Somali immigrants, most of them criminals, after judges in Strasbourg decided that sending them home would breach Article 3 of the convention, which bans inhumane treatment”).
Whilst many lawyers are keen champions for the present human rights regime, equally there are critics. Celebrated amongst these is former Law Lord, Lord Hoffman (who has, amongst other things, been Director and Chairperson of Amnesty International Charity Limited). In his 19 March 2009 Judicial Studies Board Annual Lecture, whilst taking no issue with the Convention itself as “a perfectly serviceable abstract statement of the rights which individuals in a civilised society should enjoy” and the text of which is “perfectly acceptable to adopt. . .as a United Kingdom constitutional instrument”, he nevertheless expressed concerns about “the mechanism adopted by the Convention for the application of these abstractions to concrete problems”.
He was of course referring to the ECHR. In his view the local application of these abstract principles “requires trade-offs and compromises, exercises of judgment which can be made only in the context of a given society and its legal system”. And whilst the ECHR gives some recognition to national legal self-determination in the ‘margin of appreciation’ doctrine, the ECHR “has been unable to resist the temptation to aggrandise its jurisdiction and to impose uniform rules on Member States”. In Lord Hoffman’s view, the ECHR “considers itself the equivalent of the Supreme Court of the United States, laying down a federal law of Europe”.
Lord Hoffman also wrote a supportive Foreword to the 7 February 2011 Policy Exchange Paper: Bringing Rights Back Home. Written by Dr. Michael Pinto-Duschinsky (who is also a CBR Commissioner) the Paper “identifies key weaknesses in the current arrangements and recommends a series of political reforms to create a new constitutional settlement – one that guarantees the place of core human rights in national life, while helping to check judicial activism and protect parliamentary democracy”.
The Paper argues that the: ‘time has now come for the UK government to consider whether or not it wishes to remain tied to an inefficient, unaccountable and remote court, or whether our own constitutional reforms have done enough to ensure that the British judiciary is itself capable of considering these questions as the final appellate court”.
It therefore suggests that the UK Government begins negotiations with the Council of Europe (time-limited to two years) regarding substantial reforms to the ECHR. If the negotiations fail, argues the Paper, “then the UK should consider withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights”. For the: “….UK is a mature and long established democracy and, along with the vast majority of other nations, is capable of appointing judges to determine its own human rights law.” And whilst the “…..UK should retain the text of the European Convention of Human Rights in UK law….judges would be free to develop a distinctive UK human rights jurisprudence, as cases are presented that allow them to re-consider the Convention in the context of British political culture as well as the provisions of the proposed British Bill of Rights”.
Not surprisingly, ECHR President, Jean-Paul Costa, does not support a British Bill of Rights. In a June 2010 Guardian interview he was quoted as saying that the “project of returning the court to British rule is a bad idea”. And the introduction of a British Bill of Rights could mean that not all Convention rights are protected. And this “could create divergencies between the [Strasbourg] case law and the law in the UK”.
The application of human rights law is an emotive issue on which many people hold passionately different views. However, the arguments of both Lord Hoffman and Michael Pinto-Duschinsky are cogent and deserve serious consideration. As the latter is represented on the CBR (along with more obvious sympathisers with the current human rights position) the different viewpoints should be well-ventilated and the responses to the Consultation weighed against a range of perspectives.
But whatever the consultation outcome, it is unlikely that, on this issue at least, the Coalition pantomime horse will find itself able to trot contentedly in the one direction.
Dr. Nicholas Dobson is a Senior Consultant with Pannone LLP specialising in local and public law is also Communications Officer for the Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors.
Scrutiny for killer and board
Scrutiny for killer and board
By Julia Spitz, Metro West Daily News, Massachusetts, 23 Aug 2011
The state's Parole Board has come under fire for being so lenient a career criminal was free to kill Woburn Police officer in December, and so tough that they haven't released enough eligible prisoners this year.
The spotlight on the board's seesawing reputation isn't confined to newspaper opinion pages.
Convicted murderer Francis Soffen brought it up to board members last week.
"Now they say you're going to deny (my parole) because of the cop-shooter," Soffen said during his 15th attempt at release.
Soffen's two nieces and the 12 family members of his victims were also talking about the board's tenor as they filed into the Mercer Road building in Natick on Friday morning.
Several brought along photocopies of newspaper articles about last week's Governor's Council meeting, where Parole Board Chairman Josh Wall was taken to task for the roughly 15 percent drop in parole approvals. Springfield resident Debra Allen hoped it could signal a better chance for her uncle this time. The families of Gary Dube and Stephen Perrot hoped it did not.
No date is set for the board's decision, but Soffen, who was convicted of the 1972 murders of Dube and Perrot, is pretty sure how it will turn out.
"He's not going to vote for me," Soffen said of board member Roger Michel, who, during the four-hour hearing, brought up Soffen's reputation as "one of the most difficult prisoners to manage in the whole prison system."
"I don't think you are either," Soffen told Wall, who wasn't impressed by Soffen's claim he couldn't help shooting Perrot six times in the head.
"It was a semiautomatic weapon," said Wall, a longtime Suffolk County prosecutor. "It's not a machine gun. Each one of those shell casings came back at you. ... It's a gross misrepresentation that it was a millisecond decision on your part."
Board members also focused on Soffen's most recent disciplinary report for grabbing a nurse's bottom in the prison infirmary, and inflammatory "Between the Bars" blog posts he said are written by another prisoner using his name.
Soffen, who started off by saying he now understands "the meaning of remorse," finished the hearing just short of making threats.
"If I get denied, I'm not going to say it's my fault. I'm going to say it's your fault," he told the six men and women deciding his fate.
Soffen has been cited by prison rights advocates as a case worthy of compassionate release due to medical problems that have left the 72-year-old confined to a wheelchair.
"Technically, a correction officer is killing me because of the blood I received" after being stabbed trying to protect a guard during a prison fight in Walpole more than a decade ago. A transfusion led to hepatitis, he told the board. Other health problems include heart attacks and cancer.
He also said he thinks he's losing his memory, which might account for why he doesn't remember details of his crimes, like tying up Dube and stuffing him in a car trunk.
"When you plead, you plead to a lot of things, just to get rid of them," he said.
Dube, an Agawam resident, was 24 when Soffen shot him and dumped his body in the Connecticut River. Perrot, a Springfield father of four and longtime friend of Soffen's, was shot six times in the head. Prosecutors said the killings were retaliation for Dube's grand jury testimony against Soffen and Perrot's plans to testify about armed robberies Soffen orchestrated. Since then, Soffen has given various accounts of his involvement. He admitted to second-degree murder in 1973 as part of a plea deal and is currently incarcerated in Shirley.
His lawyer, John Rull, emphasized Soffen's good behavior during work furloughs in the 1970s. A former correction officer testified on Soffen's behalf, saying his poor health "negates any concern he would represent a danger to society."
"We as a society have a responsibility to provide forgiveness," the Rev. Jason Lydon, a prisoner-rights activist and vocal supporter of Sudbury terror suspect Tarek Mehanna, told the board.
Soffen and his lawyer cited a recent religious conversion as a factor to take into consideration.
"We don't judge religious conversion. We judge remorse and rehabilitation," said Wall.
The board judging Soffen may be different than in past years, but their task remains the same: "Risk assessment," said Wall.
"You had the opportunity to come in and show what is different ... I conclude you are not being truthful," Wall told Soffen.
The board's new reputation may be too tough for some Governor's Council members' liking, but it seems unlikely this case will set the pendulum swinging in the other direction.
By Julia Spitz, Metro West Daily News, Massachusetts, 23 Aug 2011
The state's Parole Board has come under fire for being so lenient a career criminal was free to kill Woburn Police officer in December, and so tough that they haven't released enough eligible prisoners this year.
The spotlight on the board's seesawing reputation isn't confined to newspaper opinion pages.
Convicted murderer Francis Soffen brought it up to board members last week.
"Now they say you're going to deny (my parole) because of the cop-shooter," Soffen said during his 15th attempt at release.
Soffen's two nieces and the 12 family members of his victims were also talking about the board's tenor as they filed into the Mercer Road building in Natick on Friday morning.
Several brought along photocopies of newspaper articles about last week's Governor's Council meeting, where Parole Board Chairman Josh Wall was taken to task for the roughly 15 percent drop in parole approvals. Springfield resident Debra Allen hoped it could signal a better chance for her uncle this time. The families of Gary Dube and Stephen Perrot hoped it did not.
No date is set for the board's decision, but Soffen, who was convicted of the 1972 murders of Dube and Perrot, is pretty sure how it will turn out.
"He's not going to vote for me," Soffen said of board member Roger Michel, who, during the four-hour hearing, brought up Soffen's reputation as "one of the most difficult prisoners to manage in the whole prison system."
"I don't think you are either," Soffen told Wall, who wasn't impressed by Soffen's claim he couldn't help shooting Perrot six times in the head.
"It was a semiautomatic weapon," said Wall, a longtime Suffolk County prosecutor. "It's not a machine gun. Each one of those shell casings came back at you. ... It's a gross misrepresentation that it was a millisecond decision on your part."
Board members also focused on Soffen's most recent disciplinary report for grabbing a nurse's bottom in the prison infirmary, and inflammatory "Between the Bars" blog posts he said are written by another prisoner using his name.
Soffen, who started off by saying he now understands "the meaning of remorse," finished the hearing just short of making threats.
"If I get denied, I'm not going to say it's my fault. I'm going to say it's your fault," he told the six men and women deciding his fate.
Soffen has been cited by prison rights advocates as a case worthy of compassionate release due to medical problems that have left the 72-year-old confined to a wheelchair.
"Technically, a correction officer is killing me because of the blood I received" after being stabbed trying to protect a guard during a prison fight in Walpole more than a decade ago. A transfusion led to hepatitis, he told the board. Other health problems include heart attacks and cancer.
He also said he thinks he's losing his memory, which might account for why he doesn't remember details of his crimes, like tying up Dube and stuffing him in a car trunk.
"When you plead, you plead to a lot of things, just to get rid of them," he said.
Dube, an Agawam resident, was 24 when Soffen shot him and dumped his body in the Connecticut River. Perrot, a Springfield father of four and longtime friend of Soffen's, was shot six times in the head. Prosecutors said the killings were retaliation for Dube's grand jury testimony against Soffen and Perrot's plans to testify about armed robberies Soffen orchestrated. Since then, Soffen has given various accounts of his involvement. He admitted to second-degree murder in 1973 as part of a plea deal and is currently incarcerated in Shirley.
His lawyer, John Rull, emphasized Soffen's good behavior during work furloughs in the 1970s. A former correction officer testified on Soffen's behalf, saying his poor health "negates any concern he would represent a danger to society."
"We as a society have a responsibility to provide forgiveness," the Rev. Jason Lydon, a prisoner-rights activist and vocal supporter of Sudbury terror suspect Tarek Mehanna, told the board.
Soffen and his lawyer cited a recent religious conversion as a factor to take into consideration.
"We don't judge religious conversion. We judge remorse and rehabilitation," said Wall.
The board judging Soffen may be different than in past years, but their task remains the same: "Risk assessment," said Wall.
"You had the opportunity to come in and show what is different ... I conclude you are not being truthful," Wall told Soffen.
The board's new reputation may be too tough for some Governor's Council members' liking, but it seems unlikely this case will set the pendulum swinging in the other direction.
Monday, August 22, 2011
SPARE US THE DOG WHISTLE PRIME MINISTER...
SPARE US THE DOG WHISTLE PRIME MINISTER...
LIBERTY NEWS
Spare us the dog whistle Prime Minister...
22 August 2011
Author: Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty
Another day, another unprovoked attack on the Human Rights Act. The Prime Minister, writing in the Sunday Express, gave the HRA another thoroughly predictable bashing. It’s all becoming depressingly familiar – the legislation carries the can for everything from the recent riots, ‘young people today’ to a perceived erosion of personal responsibility. Perhaps climate change and rising obesity can be laid at its door too?
Once again the Prime Minister rails against the ‘twisting and misrepresentation of human rights’ and vows to create a British Bill of Rights that won’t be used as ‘a cover for rules or excuses that fly in the face of common sense’. But hold on, is this the same Prime Minister who said no "phoney human rights concerns" about publishing images of riot suspects would be allowed to "get in the way of bringing these criminals to justice" – despite it being perfectly reasonable and permissible under the HRA to publish photos of wanted suspects? That’s twisting and misrepresenting human rights if ever we saw it.
And the idea that the HRA somehow provides unfettered and limitless rights without any corresponding responsibilities is patent nonsense – respect for the rights of others is inbuilt into the Act and rights can be limited for a number of legitimate reasons including public safety and national security. Further, you don’t have to be a lawyer to know that there is a statute book full of laws that we must all obey or face the consequences. The HRA is one of the few pieces of legislation that allows individuals to hold the state to account – perhaps this is what’s making those in power so hostile?
As for the false dichotomy of human rights versus common sense, isn’t it ‘common sense’ that rape victims shouldn’t be cross examined by their attackers? That councils shouldn’t be able to use James Bond style surveillance on families to police school catchment areas? Or that a mother should be granted an inquest into her daughter’s murder by a prisoner released too early? These outcomes have all been achieved through the use of the ECHR and the HRA.
Perhaps we shouldn’t be too surprised – after all, the Conservatives did make repealing the HRA a manifesto pledge. But where is our Deputy Prime Minister? In the run-up to the election, we remember the Lib Dem leader castigating the Labour party for failing to defend the legislation but not a peep from him amidst the recent anti-human rights clamour. Human rights need friends in powerful places to speak up – so come on Mr Clegg, find your voice. We agree with Mr Cameron that human rights have been twisted and misrepresented – often by those who should know better. But rather than trashing them, how about providing some accurate information about what the HRA actually does and doesn’t do? The Human Rights Act doesn’t protect an endless catalogue of rights. Indeed, it only protects 15 well-established fundamental rights and freedoms. So before politicians attempt to sweep away our small bundle of rights, surely they have a duty to tell us what we stand to lose?
We’re happy to lend a helping hand – on Thursday a new series will begin on the Liberty blog explaining, informing and mythbusting about a different article of the HRA each week. Because in truth the HRA does not undermine personal responsibility, or cause social divisions. It actually contains common values that bind us together in difficult times and protect everyone; young and old, rich and poor, you and me.
Anybody’s privacy could be breached by the prying eyes of the state or corporations, anybody can be wrongly accused of a crime, and anybody could fall foul of careless and insensitive decision-making by public authorities. The Prime Minister is right – British people did fight and die for these rights and freedoms. Before tinkering with Churchill’s legacy, perhaps he should consider the disservice he does their sacrifice when he denigrates these hard won British and treasures paid for in courage and blood.
LIBERTY NEWS
Spare us the dog whistle Prime Minister...
22 August 2011
Author: Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty
Another day, another unprovoked attack on the Human Rights Act. The Prime Minister, writing in the Sunday Express, gave the HRA another thoroughly predictable bashing. It’s all becoming depressingly familiar – the legislation carries the can for everything from the recent riots, ‘young people today’ to a perceived erosion of personal responsibility. Perhaps climate change and rising obesity can be laid at its door too?
Once again the Prime Minister rails against the ‘twisting and misrepresentation of human rights’ and vows to create a British Bill of Rights that won’t be used as ‘a cover for rules or excuses that fly in the face of common sense’. But hold on, is this the same Prime Minister who said no "phoney human rights concerns" about publishing images of riot suspects would be allowed to "get in the way of bringing these criminals to justice" – despite it being perfectly reasonable and permissible under the HRA to publish photos of wanted suspects? That’s twisting and misrepresenting human rights if ever we saw it.
And the idea that the HRA somehow provides unfettered and limitless rights without any corresponding responsibilities is patent nonsense – respect for the rights of others is inbuilt into the Act and rights can be limited for a number of legitimate reasons including public safety and national security. Further, you don’t have to be a lawyer to know that there is a statute book full of laws that we must all obey or face the consequences. The HRA is one of the few pieces of legislation that allows individuals to hold the state to account – perhaps this is what’s making those in power so hostile?
As for the false dichotomy of human rights versus common sense, isn’t it ‘common sense’ that rape victims shouldn’t be cross examined by their attackers? That councils shouldn’t be able to use James Bond style surveillance on families to police school catchment areas? Or that a mother should be granted an inquest into her daughter’s murder by a prisoner released too early? These outcomes have all been achieved through the use of the ECHR and the HRA.
Perhaps we shouldn’t be too surprised – after all, the Conservatives did make repealing the HRA a manifesto pledge. But where is our Deputy Prime Minister? In the run-up to the election, we remember the Lib Dem leader castigating the Labour party for failing to defend the legislation but not a peep from him amidst the recent anti-human rights clamour. Human rights need friends in powerful places to speak up – so come on Mr Clegg, find your voice. We agree with Mr Cameron that human rights have been twisted and misrepresented – often by those who should know better. But rather than trashing them, how about providing some accurate information about what the HRA actually does and doesn’t do? The Human Rights Act doesn’t protect an endless catalogue of rights. Indeed, it only protects 15 well-established fundamental rights and freedoms. So before politicians attempt to sweep away our small bundle of rights, surely they have a duty to tell us what we stand to lose?
We’re happy to lend a helping hand – on Thursday a new series will begin on the Liberty blog explaining, informing and mythbusting about a different article of the HRA each week. Because in truth the HRA does not undermine personal responsibility, or cause social divisions. It actually contains common values that bind us together in difficult times and protect everyone; young and old, rich and poor, you and me.
Anybody’s privacy could be breached by the prying eyes of the state or corporations, anybody can be wrongly accused of a crime, and anybody could fall foul of careless and insensitive decision-making by public authorities. The Prime Minister is right – British people did fight and die for these rights and freedoms. Before tinkering with Churchill’s legacy, perhaps he should consider the disservice he does their sacrifice when he denigrates these hard won British and treasures paid for in courage and blood.
BBC accused of misleading the public
BBC accused of misleading the public
"The commission, which will be jointly chaired by Justice Secretary Ken Clarke and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, will look at whether the UK Bill of Rights could overrule the European Convention of Human Rights".
There is no excuse for both these factual inaccuracies.
The Commission is chaired by Sir Leigh Lewis KCB.
Terms of reference
The Commission will investigate the creation of a UK Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in UK law, and protects and extend our liberties.
It will examine the operation and implementation of these obligations, and consider ways to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties.
It should provide interim advice to the Government on the ongoing Interlaken process to reform the Strasbourg court ahead of and following the UK’s Chairmanship of the Council of Europe.
It should consult, including with the public, judiciary and devolved administrations and legislatures, and aim to report no later than by the end of 2012.
The BBC got the Chair wrong and there is no remit to see if a British Bill of Rights could overrule the ECHR. Any lawyer worth his salt would tell you that domestic legislation cannot overrule international law.
BBC Duh!
"The commission, which will be jointly chaired by Justice Secretary Ken Clarke and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, will look at whether the UK Bill of Rights could overrule the European Convention of Human Rights".
There is no excuse for both these factual inaccuracies.
The Commission is chaired by Sir Leigh Lewis KCB.
Terms of reference
The Commission will investigate the creation of a UK Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in UK law, and protects and extend our liberties.
It will examine the operation and implementation of these obligations, and consider ways to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties.
It should provide interim advice to the Government on the ongoing Interlaken process to reform the Strasbourg court ahead of and following the UK’s Chairmanship of the Council of Europe.
It should consult, including with the public, judiciary and devolved administrations and legislatures, and aim to report no later than by the end of 2012.
The BBC got the Chair wrong and there is no remit to see if a British Bill of Rights could overrule the ECHR. Any lawyer worth his salt would tell you that domestic legislation cannot overrule international law.
BBC Duh!
Sunday, August 21, 2011
DAVID CAMERON: HUMAN RIGHTS IN MY SIGHTS
DAVID CAMERON: HUMAN RIGHTS IN MY SIGHTS
ALMOST two weeks on from the riots, the clean-up continues. Communities all over the country have come together with brooms, mops and pots of paint to restore local pride.
The Express Newspapers’ campaign Reclaim Our Streets, so generously backed by thousands of readers, shows how the best of Britain can overcome the worst.
But what is clear in the aftermath of these riots is that we don’t just need to reclaim our streets, we need to reclaim our society. The greed and thuggery we saw during the riots did not come out of nowhere. There are deep problems in our society that have been growing for a long time: a decline in responsibility, a rise in selfishness, a growing sense that individual rights come before anything else.
So now we need a concerted fightback against the wrong-headed ideas, bureaucratic nonsense and destructive culture that have led us to this. That fightback means scoring a clear line between right and wrong through every neighbourhood and backing it up with the full force of the law.
We need a stronger police presence on the streets, deterring crime and catching criminals instead of filling in forms or wasting time on phony targets. That is what people want. That is why elected Police and Crime Commissioners is a powerful idea; they will make policing more responsive to what the people in your neighbourhood need, to keep you safe.
The fightback also means rebuilding the sense of personal responsibility that has been eroded over the years by many things, from the welfare system where work doesn’t pay to the twisting and misrepresenting of human rights.
The British people have fought and died for people’s rights to freedom and dignity but they did not fight so that people did not have to take full responsibility for their actions. So though it won’t be easy, though it will mean taking on parts of the establishment, I am determined we get a grip on the misrepresentation of human rights.
We are looking at creating our own British Bill of Rights. We are going to fight in Europe for changes to the way the European Court works and we will fight to ensure people understand the real scope of these rights and do not use them as cover for rules or excuses that fly in the face of common sense.
Above all, a social fightback means instilling in our children and young people the decency, discipline and sense of duty that make good citizens.
The first place people learn these values is in the home. That is why I make no apology for talking about the importance of family and marriage. Every government policy must pass what I call the family test: does this make life better for families or worse? Does this make it easier to bring up well-behaved children or harder? Family is back at the top of the agenda.
Children also learn values in schools. Every school should be a place where children learn manners and morals but that is only possible when there is order in the classroom. So we are taking action to restore authority and boundaries, with teachers able to discipline pupils as they see fit and heads having the freedom to set uniform and behaviour policies and enforce them.
But I believe we can and should do more. When we see events as shocking as the riots and so many young people whose lives have no shape beyond the shape of their gang, no purpose beyond the next time they get smashed on drink or drugs, it is clear that the need to restore values calls for something new. That is why this Government is establishing National Citizen Service.
This has its roots in the National Service that many young people undertook decades ago. National Citizen Service is non-military but aims to foster the same sense of responsibility and self-discipline. It’s about young people spending time away from home, doing a mix of tough physical activities like climbing and hiking, alongside work in local communities.
They might be coaching younger children to play football, visiting elderly patients in hospital or offering a bike repair service to the community.
Before the riots we were already looking to roll this out across the country, with up to 30,000 teenagers taking part next year, but after the riots, I feel our ambitions weren’t big enough.
I want National Citizen Service to be available to every teenager after GCSEs. I want them to learn that they can make a difference in their communities and that real fulfilment comes not from trashing things or being selfish but by building things and working with others. Above all, I want them to learn that Britain is a great country they should feel proud to belong to.
Comment: It sent a chill down my spine when I read the above headline. Why would anybody in their right mind seek to attack human rights? The European Convention on Human Rights was drafted following World War 2 as a defence against another dictator like Hitler grabbing absolute power. The ECHR is designed to protect the citizens of Member States of the Council of Europe from becoming victims of totalitarian or authoritarian regimes. As a Human Rights Defender this article sends alarm bells ringing in my head.
Pride comes before a fall. Whilst brooms, mops and pots of paint may restore riot damage I fail to see how they will restore local pride. Besides, has anybody seen Tory Toff David Cameron with either a broom, mop or paint brush in his hands?
The Pornographer-in-Chief, Richard Desmond, owner of the racist and xenophobic Daily Express has started a campaign to Reclaim Our Streets. The problem with this is that nobody has taken our streets therefore the campaign is pointless unless the point is to mask a hidden agenda. How the Express can claim to be the best of Britain is beyond me. It is part of the gutter press.
"But what is clear in the aftermath of these riots is that we don’t just need to reclaim our streets, we need to reclaim our society". It's as clear as mud. What is needed in the aftermath of the riots is for the Prime Minister and owner of these papers to stop falsely claiming that somebody has taken our streets and society. Therefore, the claims that they have to be reclaimed are also false. In other words, David Cameron and Richard Desmond are engaging in political spin. Spin is just another word for lie. Accepting that they are both lying, what truth is it that they seek to hide from us?
"The greed and thuggery we saw during the riots did not come out of nowhere. There are deep problems in our society that have been growing for a long time: a decline in responsibility, a rise in selfishness, a growing sense that individual rights come before anything else".
Could it have come out of Parliament, for example? Ministers exercising power without responsibility. MPs and Lords selfishly filling their pockets out of the public purse. To add insult to injury they claimed the right of parliamentary privilege entitled them to steal from the taxpayers! According to the Interlaken process which the UK has signed up to, human rights should be deemed as higher law. Therefore individual humman rights should come before anything else, particularly before the notion of the Supremacy of Parliament. The Council of Europe recognises the sovereignty of the people and not the sovereignty of Parliament.
"So now we need a concerted fightback against the wrong-headed ideas, bureaucratic nonsense and destructive culture that have led us to this. That fightback means scoring a clear line between right and wrong through every neighbourhood and backing it up with the full force of the law".
I am fighting back against the wrong-headed ideas being spouted by David Cameron and Richard Desmond. The bureaucratic nonsense and destructive culture emanate from Parliament. So why blame the general public for what MPs and Lords have done? According to the law there is already a clear line between right and wrong, but when it comes to MPs and Lords the full force of law was not used against them. They have adopted a view that they are somehow above the law. The guilty need to be corrected over this misconception. Parliament cannot lead by good example whilst setting a bad example to follow.
"We need a stronger police presence on the streets, deterring crime and catching criminals instead of filling in forms or wasting time on phony targets. That is what people want. That is why elected Police and Crime Commissioners is a powerful idea; they will make policing more responsive to what the people in your neighbourhood need, to keep you safe".
Cutting police numbers does not add up to a stronger police presence but a weaker one. One of the reasons why the police have to fill in forms is because it provides a check against abuse of powers, for example on stop and search. Unchecked, the institutionally racist police target ethnic minorities. You can make policing more responsive if the call centre operatives stopped playing the game Twenty Questions whenever somebody dials 999 in an emergency! What the people in my neighbourhood need is for the police station opened by Charles Clarke and closed by his successor John Reid to be reopened again! As it stands we are in No Mans Land with the nearest police stations being 20 minutes away in each direction on Beverley Road in Hull.
"The fightback also means rebuilding the sense of personal responsibility that has been eroded over the years by many things, from the welfare system where work doesn’t pay to the twisting and misrepresenting of human rights".
David Cameron did not show personal responsibility when he went on drunken rampages in Oxford restaurants during his student days as a member of the Bullingdon Club. Likewise MPs and Lords have failed to show personal responsibility when fiddling expenses. Some Ministers have failed to be responsible in the Office of Home Secretary and Ministry of Justice. One of the drawbacks of imprisonment is that it denies inmates personal responsibility, and yet the UK has the highest prison population in Western Europe! Those in the welfare system collect benefits because they are not in work, therefore it follows that work doesn't pay! The only ones I have seen twisting and misrepresenting human rights are the right wing media and right wing politicians.
"The British people have fought and died for people’s rights to freedom and dignity but they did not fight so that people did not have to take full responsibility for their actions. So though it won’t be easy, though it will mean taking on parts of the establishment, I am determined we get a grip on the misrepresentation of human rights".
It's not just the British people who have fought and died. Many more millions in Europe fought and died too. The 46 other Member States of the Council of Europe and 26 other Member States of the European Union, and the UK signed up to the Convention which guarantees human rights. Whilst the Convention does place an obligation upon Member States to take full responsibility for ensuring human rights, the human rights under the Convention are not dependent upon individuals being responsible. For David Cameron and Richard Desmond to claim otherwise is a misrepresentation of human rights. It is not for the state to limit its citizens human rights. No wonder the Council of Europe has likened David Cameron to the dictators of the Greek Colonels and President of Belarus, in relation to denying convicted prisoners their human right to the vote.
"We are looking at creating our own British Bill of Rights. We are going to fight in Europe for changes to the way the European Court works and we will fight to ensure people understand the real scope of these rights and do not use them as cover for rules or excuses that fly in the face of common sense".
We already have a Bill of Rights 1688/9 and a Human Rights Act 1998, so what's with the "British" bit? The UK is 1/47th of the Council of Europe and 1/27th of the European Union, we no longer have the British Empire. Unless the UK withdraws from Europe or is expelled from Europe, any so-called British Bill of Rights which seeks to limit the human rights under the Convention will be incompatible. It is nonsense to talk about going to fight in Europe, any changes to the Convention and Court will require agreement of the other 46 Member States. Nor does a politician and newspaper owner have to fight to ensure that people understand the real scope of these rights. All it requires is for David Cameron and Richard Desmond to stop telling lies, and for the state to ensure the citizens human rights and the public will then understand the scope of the rights. It is David Cameron and Richard Desmond who are using the rights as a cover for their hidden agenda. One thing is for sure is that neither David Cameron nor Richard Desmond have a clue about common sense or they would not embark upon this hairbrained scheme of theirs.
"Above all, a social fightback means instilling in our children and young people the decency, discipline and sense of duty that make good citizens...I want them to learn that they can make a difference in their communities and that real fulfilment comes not from trashing things or being selfish but by building things and working with others".
This from a man known to have trashed Oxford restaurants just for fun!
ALMOST two weeks on from the riots, the clean-up continues. Communities all over the country have come together with brooms, mops and pots of paint to restore local pride.
The Express Newspapers’ campaign Reclaim Our Streets, so generously backed by thousands of readers, shows how the best of Britain can overcome the worst.
But what is clear in the aftermath of these riots is that we don’t just need to reclaim our streets, we need to reclaim our society. The greed and thuggery we saw during the riots did not come out of nowhere. There are deep problems in our society that have been growing for a long time: a decline in responsibility, a rise in selfishness, a growing sense that individual rights come before anything else.
So now we need a concerted fightback against the wrong-headed ideas, bureaucratic nonsense and destructive culture that have led us to this. That fightback means scoring a clear line between right and wrong through every neighbourhood and backing it up with the full force of the law.
We need a stronger police presence on the streets, deterring crime and catching criminals instead of filling in forms or wasting time on phony targets. That is what people want. That is why elected Police and Crime Commissioners is a powerful idea; they will make policing more responsive to what the people in your neighbourhood need, to keep you safe.
The fightback also means rebuilding the sense of personal responsibility that has been eroded over the years by many things, from the welfare system where work doesn’t pay to the twisting and misrepresenting of human rights.
The British people have fought and died for people’s rights to freedom and dignity but they did not fight so that people did not have to take full responsibility for their actions. So though it won’t be easy, though it will mean taking on parts of the establishment, I am determined we get a grip on the misrepresentation of human rights.
We are looking at creating our own British Bill of Rights. We are going to fight in Europe for changes to the way the European Court works and we will fight to ensure people understand the real scope of these rights and do not use them as cover for rules or excuses that fly in the face of common sense.
Above all, a social fightback means instilling in our children and young people the decency, discipline and sense of duty that make good citizens.
The first place people learn these values is in the home. That is why I make no apology for talking about the importance of family and marriage. Every government policy must pass what I call the family test: does this make life better for families or worse? Does this make it easier to bring up well-behaved children or harder? Family is back at the top of the agenda.
Children also learn values in schools. Every school should be a place where children learn manners and morals but that is only possible when there is order in the classroom. So we are taking action to restore authority and boundaries, with teachers able to discipline pupils as they see fit and heads having the freedom to set uniform and behaviour policies and enforce them.
But I believe we can and should do more. When we see events as shocking as the riots and so many young people whose lives have no shape beyond the shape of their gang, no purpose beyond the next time they get smashed on drink or drugs, it is clear that the need to restore values calls for something new. That is why this Government is establishing National Citizen Service.
This has its roots in the National Service that many young people undertook decades ago. National Citizen Service is non-military but aims to foster the same sense of responsibility and self-discipline. It’s about young people spending time away from home, doing a mix of tough physical activities like climbing and hiking, alongside work in local communities.
They might be coaching younger children to play football, visiting elderly patients in hospital or offering a bike repair service to the community.
Before the riots we were already looking to roll this out across the country, with up to 30,000 teenagers taking part next year, but after the riots, I feel our ambitions weren’t big enough.
I want National Citizen Service to be available to every teenager after GCSEs. I want them to learn that they can make a difference in their communities and that real fulfilment comes not from trashing things or being selfish but by building things and working with others. Above all, I want them to learn that Britain is a great country they should feel proud to belong to.
Comment: It sent a chill down my spine when I read the above headline. Why would anybody in their right mind seek to attack human rights? The European Convention on Human Rights was drafted following World War 2 as a defence against another dictator like Hitler grabbing absolute power. The ECHR is designed to protect the citizens of Member States of the Council of Europe from becoming victims of totalitarian or authoritarian regimes. As a Human Rights Defender this article sends alarm bells ringing in my head.
Pride comes before a fall. Whilst brooms, mops and pots of paint may restore riot damage I fail to see how they will restore local pride. Besides, has anybody seen Tory Toff David Cameron with either a broom, mop or paint brush in his hands?
The Pornographer-in-Chief, Richard Desmond, owner of the racist and xenophobic Daily Express has started a campaign to Reclaim Our Streets. The problem with this is that nobody has taken our streets therefore the campaign is pointless unless the point is to mask a hidden agenda. How the Express can claim to be the best of Britain is beyond me. It is part of the gutter press.
"But what is clear in the aftermath of these riots is that we don’t just need to reclaim our streets, we need to reclaim our society". It's as clear as mud. What is needed in the aftermath of the riots is for the Prime Minister and owner of these papers to stop falsely claiming that somebody has taken our streets and society. Therefore, the claims that they have to be reclaimed are also false. In other words, David Cameron and Richard Desmond are engaging in political spin. Spin is just another word for lie. Accepting that they are both lying, what truth is it that they seek to hide from us?
"The greed and thuggery we saw during the riots did not come out of nowhere. There are deep problems in our society that have been growing for a long time: a decline in responsibility, a rise in selfishness, a growing sense that individual rights come before anything else".
Could it have come out of Parliament, for example? Ministers exercising power without responsibility. MPs and Lords selfishly filling their pockets out of the public purse. To add insult to injury they claimed the right of parliamentary privilege entitled them to steal from the taxpayers! According to the Interlaken process which the UK has signed up to, human rights should be deemed as higher law. Therefore individual humman rights should come before anything else, particularly before the notion of the Supremacy of Parliament. The Council of Europe recognises the sovereignty of the people and not the sovereignty of Parliament.
"So now we need a concerted fightback against the wrong-headed ideas, bureaucratic nonsense and destructive culture that have led us to this. That fightback means scoring a clear line between right and wrong through every neighbourhood and backing it up with the full force of the law".
I am fighting back against the wrong-headed ideas being spouted by David Cameron and Richard Desmond. The bureaucratic nonsense and destructive culture emanate from Parliament. So why blame the general public for what MPs and Lords have done? According to the law there is already a clear line between right and wrong, but when it comes to MPs and Lords the full force of law was not used against them. They have adopted a view that they are somehow above the law. The guilty need to be corrected over this misconception. Parliament cannot lead by good example whilst setting a bad example to follow.
"We need a stronger police presence on the streets, deterring crime and catching criminals instead of filling in forms or wasting time on phony targets. That is what people want. That is why elected Police and Crime Commissioners is a powerful idea; they will make policing more responsive to what the people in your neighbourhood need, to keep you safe".
Cutting police numbers does not add up to a stronger police presence but a weaker one. One of the reasons why the police have to fill in forms is because it provides a check against abuse of powers, for example on stop and search. Unchecked, the institutionally racist police target ethnic minorities. You can make policing more responsive if the call centre operatives stopped playing the game Twenty Questions whenever somebody dials 999 in an emergency! What the people in my neighbourhood need is for the police station opened by Charles Clarke and closed by his successor John Reid to be reopened again! As it stands we are in No Mans Land with the nearest police stations being 20 minutes away in each direction on Beverley Road in Hull.
"The fightback also means rebuilding the sense of personal responsibility that has been eroded over the years by many things, from the welfare system where work doesn’t pay to the twisting and misrepresenting of human rights".
David Cameron did not show personal responsibility when he went on drunken rampages in Oxford restaurants during his student days as a member of the Bullingdon Club. Likewise MPs and Lords have failed to show personal responsibility when fiddling expenses. Some Ministers have failed to be responsible in the Office of Home Secretary and Ministry of Justice. One of the drawbacks of imprisonment is that it denies inmates personal responsibility, and yet the UK has the highest prison population in Western Europe! Those in the welfare system collect benefits because they are not in work, therefore it follows that work doesn't pay! The only ones I have seen twisting and misrepresenting human rights are the right wing media and right wing politicians.
"The British people have fought and died for people’s rights to freedom and dignity but they did not fight so that people did not have to take full responsibility for their actions. So though it won’t be easy, though it will mean taking on parts of the establishment, I am determined we get a grip on the misrepresentation of human rights".
It's not just the British people who have fought and died. Many more millions in Europe fought and died too. The 46 other Member States of the Council of Europe and 26 other Member States of the European Union, and the UK signed up to the Convention which guarantees human rights. Whilst the Convention does place an obligation upon Member States to take full responsibility for ensuring human rights, the human rights under the Convention are not dependent upon individuals being responsible. For David Cameron and Richard Desmond to claim otherwise is a misrepresentation of human rights. It is not for the state to limit its citizens human rights. No wonder the Council of Europe has likened David Cameron to the dictators of the Greek Colonels and President of Belarus, in relation to denying convicted prisoners their human right to the vote.
"We are looking at creating our own British Bill of Rights. We are going to fight in Europe for changes to the way the European Court works and we will fight to ensure people understand the real scope of these rights and do not use them as cover for rules or excuses that fly in the face of common sense".
We already have a Bill of Rights 1688/9 and a Human Rights Act 1998, so what's with the "British" bit? The UK is 1/47th of the Council of Europe and 1/27th of the European Union, we no longer have the British Empire. Unless the UK withdraws from Europe or is expelled from Europe, any so-called British Bill of Rights which seeks to limit the human rights under the Convention will be incompatible. It is nonsense to talk about going to fight in Europe, any changes to the Convention and Court will require agreement of the other 46 Member States. Nor does a politician and newspaper owner have to fight to ensure that people understand the real scope of these rights. All it requires is for David Cameron and Richard Desmond to stop telling lies, and for the state to ensure the citizens human rights and the public will then understand the scope of the rights. It is David Cameron and Richard Desmond who are using the rights as a cover for their hidden agenda. One thing is for sure is that neither David Cameron nor Richard Desmond have a clue about common sense or they would not embark upon this hairbrained scheme of theirs.
"Above all, a social fightback means instilling in our children and young people the decency, discipline and sense of duty that make good citizens...I want them to learn that they can make a difference in their communities and that real fulfilment comes not from trashing things or being selfish but by building things and working with others".
This from a man known to have trashed Oxford restaurants just for fun!