A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
George Osborne sending out the wrong signals!
George Osborne sending out the wrong signals!
The Coalition government which has failed to collect the £6bn in tax which Vodafone owes, has decided to give Vodafone £180m of taxpayers money to set up a new mobile phone network which will interfere with Freeview TV signals. The Coalition government and Vodafone then expect all those householders who are affected by the interference caused by Vodafone to pay £212 to stop the interference.
Link 1
British phone users will be able to enjoy a new ultra-fast '4G' network far sooner than thought. Carriers Vodafone and O2 will fast-track the service after banding together to launch the hi-tech network, which offers download speeds akin to the ones on home broadband connections.
Link 2
Vodafone faces tax payment row Telecoms company paid zero corporation tax in the UK this year, despite handing more than £2.3bn to other countries
Link 3
Millions will have to pay to get Freeview TV New 4G mobile phone network will leave people facing £200 bills to cut out interference
The Coalition government which has failed to collect the £6bn in tax which Vodafone owes, has decided to give Vodafone £180m of taxpayers money to set up a new mobile phone network which will interfere with Freeview TV signals. The Coalition government and Vodafone then expect all those householders who are affected by the interference caused by Vodafone to pay £212 to stop the interference.
Link 1
British phone users will be able to enjoy a new ultra-fast '4G' network far sooner than thought. Carriers Vodafone and O2 will fast-track the service after banding together to launch the hi-tech network, which offers download speeds akin to the ones on home broadband connections.
Link 2
Vodafone faces tax payment row Telecoms company paid zero corporation tax in the UK this year, despite handing more than £2.3bn to other countries
Link 3
Millions will have to pay to get Freeview TV New 4G mobile phone network will leave people facing £200 bills to cut out interference
Friday, June 29, 2012
Animal pictures of the week 29 June 2012
Animal pictures of the week 29 June 2012
Baby snowy owl chicks born at Hanover Adventure Zoo, GermanyPicture: Action Press / Rex Features
Coalition fails to honour obligations and commitments in international law
Coalition fails to honour obligations and commitments in international law
The progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure (June 2011-May 2012) The Parliamentary Assembly acknowledges the work carried out by its Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee). The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) calls on the United Kingdom to sign and ratify Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 177) concerning the fight against discrimination; and United Kingdom to ratify the European Social Charter (revised) (ETS No. 163); and the United Kingdom to sign and ratify the Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter Providing for a System of Collective Complaints (ETS No. 158); and the United Kingdom to ratify the Civil Law Convention on Corruption (ETS No. 174); and the United Kingdom to sign and ratify the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No. 198).
Comment:
Unfortunately, PACE failed to take the opportunity to urge the UK Parliament to promote progress in the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, and to initiate legislative changes aimed at eliminating structural problems leading to repeated violations of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure (June 2011-May 2012) The Parliamentary Assembly acknowledges the work carried out by its Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee). The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) calls on the United Kingdom to sign and ratify Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 177) concerning the fight against discrimination; and United Kingdom to ratify the European Social Charter (revised) (ETS No. 163); and the United Kingdom to sign and ratify the Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter Providing for a System of Collective Complaints (ETS No. 158); and the United Kingdom to ratify the Civil Law Convention on Corruption (ETS No. 174); and the United Kingdom to sign and ratify the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No. 198).
Comment:
Unfortunately, PACE failed to take the opportunity to urge the UK Parliament to promote progress in the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, and to initiate legislative changes aimed at eliminating structural problems leading to repeated violations of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Nick Clegg claims House of Lords Reform Bill breaches prisoners human right to vote
Nick Clegg claims House of Lords Reform Bill breaches prisoners human right to vote
These notes refer to the House of Lords Reform Bill as introduced in the House of Commons on 27 June 2012 [Bill 52]
Franchise
272. Clause 6 provides that those who may vote in elections are to be the same electors who may vote in elections to the House of Commons. There are no longer any restrictions on peers voting and members and former members of each House may vote in elections to each House.
273. In 2005 in Hirst v UK (No 2) (2006) 42 EHRR 41 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found that the blanket ban on serving prisoners voting in House of Commons elections (in section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983) was incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol 1. A wide margin of appreciation was afforded to the UK but the blanket ban was outside that margin as it was a "blunt instrument" which "strips the convention right to vote to a significant category of persons and does so in a way that is indiscriminate" (para 82).
274. In the case of Greens and MT v UK (App. Nos. 60041/08 and 60054/08) the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights set a six month timeframe for the UK to bring forward legislative proposals to amend the legislation in compliance with the Hirst judgment. The Court later agreed to amend this deadline so that it expired six months after the Grand Chamber judgment in Scoppola v Italy (No. 3) (App. No. 126/05).
275. Judgment in Scoppola was given on 22 May 2012. The Grand Chamber accepted that decisions about disenfranchisement did not need to be taken by a judge in each individual case; they accepted that disenfranchisement could be achieved by legislation; they accepted therefore that such a ban could apply to anyone belonging to the group covered by the legislation; and they accepted that there was nothing objectionable in the Italian system where such a ban applied for the entirety of the sentence (and beyond) for those sentenced to three years imprisonment or more. But they did not depart from the conclusion in Hirst that such a ban would be incompatible as "general automatic and indiscriminate" if it applied to all those sentenced to imprisonment.
276. In Sejdic and Finci v Bosnia and Herzegovina the Grand Chamber said (at paragraph 40) that it was clear that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 applies to any of a parliament's chambers to be filled through direct elections.
277. Since sentenced prisoners are legally incapable of voting at House of Commons elections under section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, they will (under clause 6) be equally incapable of voting at House of Lords elections.
278. For these reasons the Deputy Prime Minister has said that he is unable to sign a statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government wishes Parliament to proceed with the Bill notwithstanding that such a statement of compatibility cannot be made.
279. The Government is considering the issue of prisoners’ voting rights and the implications of the Scoppola judgment for the UK.
These notes refer to the House of Lords Reform Bill as introduced in the House of Commons on 27 June 2012 [Bill 52]
Franchise
272. Clause 6 provides that those who may vote in elections are to be the same electors who may vote in elections to the House of Commons. There are no longer any restrictions on peers voting and members and former members of each House may vote in elections to each House.
273. In 2005 in Hirst v UK (No 2) (2006) 42 EHRR 41 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found that the blanket ban on serving prisoners voting in House of Commons elections (in section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983) was incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol 1. A wide margin of appreciation was afforded to the UK but the blanket ban was outside that margin as it was a "blunt instrument" which "strips the convention right to vote to a significant category of persons and does so in a way that is indiscriminate" (para 82).
274. In the case of Greens and MT v UK (App. Nos. 60041/08 and 60054/08) the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights set a six month timeframe for the UK to bring forward legislative proposals to amend the legislation in compliance with the Hirst judgment. The Court later agreed to amend this deadline so that it expired six months after the Grand Chamber judgment in Scoppola v Italy (No. 3) (App. No. 126/05).
275. Judgment in Scoppola was given on 22 May 2012. The Grand Chamber accepted that decisions about disenfranchisement did not need to be taken by a judge in each individual case; they accepted that disenfranchisement could be achieved by legislation; they accepted therefore that such a ban could apply to anyone belonging to the group covered by the legislation; and they accepted that there was nothing objectionable in the Italian system where such a ban applied for the entirety of the sentence (and beyond) for those sentenced to three years imprisonment or more. But they did not depart from the conclusion in Hirst that such a ban would be incompatible as "general automatic and indiscriminate" if it applied to all those sentenced to imprisonment.
276. In Sejdic and Finci v Bosnia and Herzegovina the Grand Chamber said (at paragraph 40) that it was clear that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 applies to any of a parliament's chambers to be filled through direct elections.
277. Since sentenced prisoners are legally incapable of voting at House of Commons elections under section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, they will (under clause 6) be equally incapable of voting at House of Lords elections.
278. For these reasons the Deputy Prime Minister has said that he is unable to sign a statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government wishes Parliament to proceed with the Bill notwithstanding that such a statement of compatibility cannot be made.
279. The Government is considering the issue of prisoners’ voting rights and the implications of the Scoppola judgment for the UK.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Murderer on the run after escape from Pentonville prison
Murderer on the run after escape from Pentonville prison
John Massey was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering a man in a pub in Hackney in 1975
A murderer is on the run after escaping from a prison in north London, the Metropolitan police have warned.
John Massey, 64, excaped from Pentonville prison in Islington at around 6.30pm on Wednesday.
Scotland Yard said he is considered "potentially dangerous" and should not be approached.Massey was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of a man at a pub in Hackney, east London in 1975.
Update:
Updated update:
Escaped murderer John Massey captured in Kent
John Massey was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering a man in a pub in Hackney in 1975
A murderer is on the run after escaping from a prison in north London, the Metropolitan police have warned.
John Massey, 64, excaped from Pentonville prison in Islington at around 6.30pm on Wednesday.
Scotland Yard said he is considered "potentially dangerous" and should not be approached.Massey was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of a man at a pub in Hackney, east London in 1975.
Update:
Updated update:
Escaped murderer John Massey captured in Kent
Defendants with learning difficulties 'need help to get fair trial'
Defendants with learning difficulties 'need help to get fair trial'
Prison Reform Trust says the sort of support given to vulnerable witnesses should also be available to vulnerable defendants
Greater support needs to be given to vulnerable defendants in order for them to get a fair trial, particularly those with learning difficulties who may have problems understanding the process, a report by the Prison Reform Trust (PRT) has warned.
Prison Reform Trust says the sort of support given to vulnerable witnesses should also be available to vulnerable defendants
Greater support needs to be given to vulnerable defendants in order for them to get a fair trial, particularly those with learning difficulties who may have problems understanding the process, a report by the Prison Reform Trust (PRT) has warned.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
JUDICIAL TACTICS IN THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
JUDICIAL TACTICS IN THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
JUDICIAL TACTICS IN THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Why Charlie Elphicke MP does not know what he is talking about and should be ignored
Why Charlie Elphicke MP does not know what he is talking about and should be ignored.
Charlie Elphicke MP: Why I'm introducing a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities Charlie Elphicke is the Member of Parliament for Dover and Deal. Follow Charlie on Twitter.
The reform of human rights laws should be a key pledge of a future Conservative Government. We should sweep away Labour's Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.
A key element of a British Bill of Rights would be to ensure our freedoms are under the control of the UK Supreme Court and not European judges in Strasbourg. It's wrong for judges in Strasbourg to decide these things. British judges in British Courts should have the final say in line with the laws passed by Parliament. Moreover this is what the British people want, with three out of four people citing the Human Rights Act as a charter for crooks and cheats in a recent You Gov poll.
The fact that the British people feel so strongly is not surprising when you look at what the current European human rights set up does - many feel it creates more problems than it sets out to correct.
All too often under the current human rights laws, it is villains and terrorists who appear to have the upper hand. Remember all that trouble about throwing out Abu Qatada? And the case of Aso Mohammed Ibrahim who knocked down and killed 12-year-old Amy Houston back in 2003, and yet was allowed to remain in the UK as immigration judges ruled that sending him home would breach his right to a ‘private and family life’? We should be able to secure our borders and deport people who commit crimes without delay. Nor should it be so difficult to uphold the principle that criminals should lose certain social rights - including the right to vote in elections.
There is a real sense among a lot of people who come to see me at my surgeries that our citizens do not have the protection under our laws that they should have. If a Briton commits a crime in Britain, that person should be tried before the British Courts under our laws. This is why many of the recent extradition cases have caused so much public concern.
Many worry that our long held freedoms have not been sufficiently protected in recent times; fundamental principles like freedom of speech and freedom of religion too often lie under siege.
At the heart of any society must lie a basic social contract, a contract where rights are matched by responsibilities. You don't hear much about that when human rights are discussed. It always seems to be "I know my rights" but should we not instead hear more about knowing your responsibilities? Such a social contract should lie at the heart of a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.
It is because we need to protect our ancient customs, liberties and freedoms that yesterday I tabled a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities to replace the Human Rights Act. This will be debated in due course. We have to be able to protect the freedoms we cherish, safeguard our borders and deal effectively with criminals and terrorists. I believe we – the UK - should have the final say on our rights and the social contract that lies at the heart of our society, not Europe or anywhere else. We can and should stand on our own two feet as a country.
Comment:
It might be recalled that prior to the last general election the Tory party manifesto pledged to scrap the Human Rights Act 1998 and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. Charlie Elphicke MP, who used to be a solicitor specialising in tax, is advocating the same old message rather than dealing with the tax loopholes, such as that crawled through by Jimmy Carr, which are costing us £bns each year. Human rights law is a specialist area of law of which he knows very little or nothing about.
It is our HRA and not Labour's as falsely claimed by Elphicke, although Labour promised a British Bill of Rights in their manifesto in 1997, and subsequently the HRA became part of our domestic law. The Tories are not happy with this because they do not feel that we should be entitled to human rights unless they are balanced against our responsibilities. Under the Ministerial Code David Cameron is responsible for abiding by the UK's treaty obligations. However, in the Prisoners Votes Case, he has failed to act responsibly. Then there is the expenses fiddling by MPs and Lords, it cannot be argued that all those robbing the public purse were acting responsibly. The issue of responsibilities is separate from human rights which are fundamental and are granted because we are human beings and cannot be removed on account of a false balancing exercise with our responsibilities by a State authority.
Our freedoms are under the control of the UK Supreme Court. However, the UK has signed up to the Council of Europe, ECHR and ECtHR, and it would be unfair if the UK was allowed to decide for itself whether it has violated our human rights. Justice demands that an independent body be the judge in a dispute between the Individual v the State. The UK has been a part of Europe for a number of years. Although there are those who are opposed to this European integration, Britain is not an island entirely unto itself and it is in our best interests to remain part of Europe and not sever all links. For a member of the legal profession to mislead the public like Charlie Elphicke MP is doing is simply being dishonest. If all 47 Member States claimed the right for their courts and Parliament to have the final say on the protection of human rights, then there would be no Council of Europe and only 47 independent States. The British Empire is dead and gone, we are now part of a team and must engage as a team player and stop this false 1 of us and 46 of them nonsense mentality. If the British people wanted what Elphicke is claiming they want, the Tories would have got a mandate from the electorate at the last general election. The public were right not to trust the Tories with total power.
It is laughable that Elphicke is arguing for a social contract which is something that some 17th and 18th century philosophers argued we should have. I want to go forward in time not backwards to the bad old days. What the racist and xenophobic Elphicke is really arguing for is a totalitarian or authoritarian regime, and withdrawal from the ECHR. Britain is no longer a leading world power and we cannot go it alone. We would be declared a rogue or pariah State and our relationships with other countries for trade would be with other dictatorships. If Elphicke's ideas were not so funny he would be deemed dangerous and locked up in a mental asylum.
Charlie Elphicke MP: Why I'm introducing a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities Charlie Elphicke is the Member of Parliament for Dover and Deal. Follow Charlie on Twitter.
The reform of human rights laws should be a key pledge of a future Conservative Government. We should sweep away Labour's Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.
A key element of a British Bill of Rights would be to ensure our freedoms are under the control of the UK Supreme Court and not European judges in Strasbourg. It's wrong for judges in Strasbourg to decide these things. British judges in British Courts should have the final say in line with the laws passed by Parliament. Moreover this is what the British people want, with three out of four people citing the Human Rights Act as a charter for crooks and cheats in a recent You Gov poll.
The fact that the British people feel so strongly is not surprising when you look at what the current European human rights set up does - many feel it creates more problems than it sets out to correct.
All too often under the current human rights laws, it is villains and terrorists who appear to have the upper hand. Remember all that trouble about throwing out Abu Qatada? And the case of Aso Mohammed Ibrahim who knocked down and killed 12-year-old Amy Houston back in 2003, and yet was allowed to remain in the UK as immigration judges ruled that sending him home would breach his right to a ‘private and family life’? We should be able to secure our borders and deport people who commit crimes without delay. Nor should it be so difficult to uphold the principle that criminals should lose certain social rights - including the right to vote in elections.
There is a real sense among a lot of people who come to see me at my surgeries that our citizens do not have the protection under our laws that they should have. If a Briton commits a crime in Britain, that person should be tried before the British Courts under our laws. This is why many of the recent extradition cases have caused so much public concern.
Many worry that our long held freedoms have not been sufficiently protected in recent times; fundamental principles like freedom of speech and freedom of religion too often lie under siege.
At the heart of any society must lie a basic social contract, a contract where rights are matched by responsibilities. You don't hear much about that when human rights are discussed. It always seems to be "I know my rights" but should we not instead hear more about knowing your responsibilities? Such a social contract should lie at the heart of a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.
It is because we need to protect our ancient customs, liberties and freedoms that yesterday I tabled a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities to replace the Human Rights Act. This will be debated in due course. We have to be able to protect the freedoms we cherish, safeguard our borders and deal effectively with criminals and terrorists. I believe we – the UK - should have the final say on our rights and the social contract that lies at the heart of our society, not Europe or anywhere else. We can and should stand on our own two feet as a country.
Comment:
It might be recalled that prior to the last general election the Tory party manifesto pledged to scrap the Human Rights Act 1998 and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. Charlie Elphicke MP, who used to be a solicitor specialising in tax, is advocating the same old message rather than dealing with the tax loopholes, such as that crawled through by Jimmy Carr, which are costing us £bns each year. Human rights law is a specialist area of law of which he knows very little or nothing about.
It is our HRA and not Labour's as falsely claimed by Elphicke, although Labour promised a British Bill of Rights in their manifesto in 1997, and subsequently the HRA became part of our domestic law. The Tories are not happy with this because they do not feel that we should be entitled to human rights unless they are balanced against our responsibilities. Under the Ministerial Code David Cameron is responsible for abiding by the UK's treaty obligations. However, in the Prisoners Votes Case, he has failed to act responsibly. Then there is the expenses fiddling by MPs and Lords, it cannot be argued that all those robbing the public purse were acting responsibly. The issue of responsibilities is separate from human rights which are fundamental and are granted because we are human beings and cannot be removed on account of a false balancing exercise with our responsibilities by a State authority.
Our freedoms are under the control of the UK Supreme Court. However, the UK has signed up to the Council of Europe, ECHR and ECtHR, and it would be unfair if the UK was allowed to decide for itself whether it has violated our human rights. Justice demands that an independent body be the judge in a dispute between the Individual v the State. The UK has been a part of Europe for a number of years. Although there are those who are opposed to this European integration, Britain is not an island entirely unto itself and it is in our best interests to remain part of Europe and not sever all links. For a member of the legal profession to mislead the public like Charlie Elphicke MP is doing is simply being dishonest. If all 47 Member States claimed the right for their courts and Parliament to have the final say on the protection of human rights, then there would be no Council of Europe and only 47 independent States. The British Empire is dead and gone, we are now part of a team and must engage as a team player and stop this false 1 of us and 46 of them nonsense mentality. If the British people wanted what Elphicke is claiming they want, the Tories would have got a mandate from the electorate at the last general election. The public were right not to trust the Tories with total power.
It is laughable that Elphicke is arguing for a social contract which is something that some 17th and 18th century philosophers argued we should have. I want to go forward in time not backwards to the bad old days. What the racist and xenophobic Elphicke is really arguing for is a totalitarian or authoritarian regime, and withdrawal from the ECHR. Britain is no longer a leading world power and we cannot go it alone. We would be declared a rogue or pariah State and our relationships with other countries for trade would be with other dictatorships. If Elphicke's ideas were not so funny he would be deemed dangerous and locked up in a mental asylum.
Sex in prisons to be studied by Howard League
Sex in prisons to be studied by Howard League
A charity is launching the first study of sex in British prisons.
The Howard League for Penal Reform says it will spend two years looking at all elements of the issue, from consensual to coercive sex in jails.
The investigation in England and Wales will also look at what can be done to improve the sex education of adolescent and teenage inmates.
The UK has a ban on conjugal visits for prisoners - although more than half of European countries allow them.
A charity is launching the first study of sex in British prisons.
The Howard League for Penal Reform says it will spend two years looking at all elements of the issue, from consensual to coercive sex in jails.
The investigation in England and Wales will also look at what can be done to improve the sex education of adolescent and teenage inmates.
The UK has a ban on conjugal visits for prisoners - although more than half of European countries allow them.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Sex-ban asylum seeker tried to sue for £750m over denial of 'human right' to a mixed cell at Hull Prison
Sex-ban asylum seeker tried to sue for £750m over denial of 'human right' to a mixed cell at Hull Prison
A FAILED asylum seeker tried to claim up to £750 million in compensation from the Government because he is not allowed to have sex in Hull Prison.
Rayden Simon Kullem claimed his human rights were being breached by being held in an all-male jail.
A FAILED asylum seeker tried to claim up to £750 million in compensation from the Government because he is not allowed to have sex in Hull Prison.
Rayden Simon Kullem claimed his human rights were being breached by being held in an all-male jail.
Brazilian prisoners given novel way to reduce their sentence
Brazilian prisoners given novel way to reduce their sentence
Some of Brazil's most notorious criminals offered 48 days off jail terms each year if they read 12 books
Brazil will offer inmates in its crowded federal penitentiary system a new
way to shorten their sentences: a reduction of four days for every book
they read.
Inmates in four federal prisons holding some of Brazil's most notorious criminals will be able to read up to 12 works of literature, philosophy, science or classics to trim a maximum 48 days off their sentence each year, the government announced.
Prisoners will have up to four weeks to read each book and write an essay that must "make correct use of paragraphs, be free of corrections, use margins and legible joined-up writing", said the notice published on Monday in the official gazette.
A panel will decide which inmates are eligible to participate in the programme, dubbed Redemption through Reading.
"A person can leave prison more enlightened and with a enlarged vision of the world," said São Paulo lawyer Andre Kehdi, who heads a book donation project for prisons.
"Without doubt they will leave a better person," he said.
Some of Brazil's most notorious criminals offered 48 days off jail terms each year if they read 12 books
Brazil will offer inmates in its crowded federal penitentiary system a new
way to shorten their sentences: a reduction of four days for every book
they read.Inmates in four federal prisons holding some of Brazil's most notorious criminals will be able to read up to 12 works of literature, philosophy, science or classics to trim a maximum 48 days off their sentence each year, the government announced.
Prisoners will have up to four weeks to read each book and write an essay that must "make correct use of paragraphs, be free of corrections, use margins and legible joined-up writing", said the notice published on Monday in the official gazette.
A panel will decide which inmates are eligible to participate in the programme, dubbed Redemption through Reading.
"A person can leave prison more enlightened and with a enlarged vision of the world," said São Paulo lawyer Andre Kehdi, who heads a book donation project for prisons.
"Without doubt they will leave a better person," he said.
Monday, June 25, 2012
The Administrative Court rules that a foreign criminal who cannot be deported to Zimbabwe was unlawfully detained for 4 years.
The Administrative Court rules that a foreign criminal who cannot be deported to Zimbabwe was unlawfully detained for 4 years.
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF TAWANDA GIBBS MHLANGA Claimant - and - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF TAWANDA GIBBS MHLANGA Claimant - and - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Nigeria unrest: Inmates escape in Damaturu jail attack
Nigeria unrest: Inmates escape in Damaturu jail attack
Forty prisoners have escaped from a jail in the northern Nigerian town of Damaturu after it was stormed by a group of armed men, police say.
Forty prisoners have escaped from a jail in the northern Nigerian town of Damaturu after it was stormed by a group of armed men, police say.
Former prisons inspector condemns probation service reform plans
Former prisons inspector condemns probation service reform plans
Lord Ramsbotham promises to lead rebellion unless 'muddled' government plans to fragment probation service are rewritten
Lord Ramsbotham, a former prisons inspector, has condemned government plans to overhaul the probation service and promised to lead a rebellion of peers and politicians unless they are rewritten.
Lord Ramsbotham promises to lead rebellion unless 'muddled' government plans to fragment probation service are rewritten
Lord Ramsbotham, a former prisons inspector, has condemned government plans to overhaul the probation service and promised to lead a rebellion of peers and politicians unless they are rewritten.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Potholes in Hull are worst in the world!
Potholes in Hull are worst in the world!
As I was saying...
As I was saying...
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Julian Assange: Is political asylum in Ecuador a sensible choice?
Julian Assange: Is political asylum in Ecuador a sensible choice?
Human Rights in Ecuador
Corruption, inefficiency, and political influence have plagued the Ecuadorian judiciary for many years. In a referendum held in 2011, President Rafael Correa obtained a popular mandate for constitutional reforms that could significantly increase government powers to constrain media and influence the appointment and dismissal of judges.
Ecuador’s laws restrict freedom of expression, and government officials, including Correa, use these laws against his critics. Those involved in protests marred by violence may be prosecuted on inflated and inappropriate ‘terrorism’ charges.
Impunity for police abuses is widespread and perpetrators of murders often attributed to a “settling of accounts” between criminal gangs are rarely prosecuted and convicted.
Human Rights in Ecuador
Corruption, inefficiency, and political influence have plagued the Ecuadorian judiciary for many years. In a referendum held in 2011, President Rafael Correa obtained a popular mandate for constitutional reforms that could significantly increase government powers to constrain media and influence the appointment and dismissal of judges.
Ecuador’s laws restrict freedom of expression, and government officials, including Correa, use these laws against his critics. Those involved in protests marred by violence may be prosecuted on inflated and inappropriate ‘terrorism’ charges.
Impunity for police abuses is widespread and perpetrators of murders often attributed to a “settling of accounts” between criminal gangs are rarely prosecuted and convicted.
HMP Birmingham 'faces challenges'
HMP Birmingham 'faces challenges'
HMP Birmingham, the first in the UK to be privatised, faces "significant strategic challenges", a report has found.
Chief Inspector of Prisons Nick Hardwick said HMP Birmingham was "a cleaner, safer and more decent place" since it was privatised last October.
But he warned the prison, operated by G4S, needed to improve its training and drugs programmes.
G4S said it welcomed the report and was considering its recommendations.
HMP Birmingham became the first prison to be taken over by a private company after previously being in the public sector in October 2011.
Mr Hardwick said: "Birmingham prison has recently made some relatively simple but nonetheless important improvements but the prison also has a number of significant strategic challenges it needs to resolve.
"It is a cleaner, safer and more decent place. However, first night and vulnerable prisoner arrangements are significant exceptions to that overall picture."
Inspectors said there was "insufficient support" for those wishing to reduce their dependency on drugs, while the single alcohol worker was "overwhelmed".
HMP Birmingham, the first in the UK to be privatised, faces "significant strategic challenges", a report has found.
Chief Inspector of Prisons Nick Hardwick said HMP Birmingham was "a cleaner, safer and more decent place" since it was privatised last October.
But he warned the prison, operated by G4S, needed to improve its training and drugs programmes.
G4S said it welcomed the report and was considering its recommendations.
HMP Birmingham became the first prison to be taken over by a private company after previously being in the public sector in October 2011.
Mr Hardwick said: "Birmingham prison has recently made some relatively simple but nonetheless important improvements but the prison also has a number of significant strategic challenges it needs to resolve.
"It is a cleaner, safer and more decent place. However, first night and vulnerable prisoner arrangements are significant exceptions to that overall picture."
Inspectors said there was "insufficient support" for those wishing to reduce their dependency on drugs, while the single alcohol worker was "overwhelmed".
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development
Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development
Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, inclu...
Theresa May, the Home Secretary, guilty of contempt of court!
Theresa May, the Home Secretary, guilty of contempt of court!
Following Theresa May getting her timeline wrong for Abu Qatada to launch an appeal to the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR, she has done it again by not releasing someone from custody, destined for deportation, within the timeline set by a judge. This is embarassing for Theresa May coming at a time when the Daily Mail makes a mountain out of a molehill as the House of Commons wastes 4 hours of time trying to tell judges what they already know!
In a separate development, the home secretary was found in contempt of court after her department failed to release an Algerian asylum seeker, Aziz Lamari, on a date set by the High Court.
A UK Border Agency spokesperson said: "Aziz Lamari is a failed asylum seeker who had served custodial sentences for serious offences.
"He was held in immigration detention awaiting removal to Algeria and we accept that he was not released on the date set by the court, which resulted in today's judgment.
"We are reviewing how this happened urgently."
Following Theresa May getting her timeline wrong for Abu Qatada to launch an appeal to the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR, she has done it again by not releasing someone from custody, destined for deportation, within the timeline set by a judge. This is embarassing for Theresa May coming at a time when the Daily Mail makes a mountain out of a molehill as the House of Commons wastes 4 hours of time trying to tell judges what they already know!
In a separate development, the home secretary was found in contempt of court after her department failed to release an Algerian asylum seeker, Aziz Lamari, on a date set by the High Court.
A UK Border Agency spokesperson said: "Aziz Lamari is a failed asylum seeker who had served custodial sentences for serious offences.
"He was held in immigration detention awaiting removal to Algeria and we accept that he was not released on the date set by the court, which resulted in today's judgment.
"We are reviewing how this happened urgently."
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Private prison companies look to Canada as industry faces lawsuits in US
Private prison companies look to Canada as industry faces lawsuits in US
US states are beginning to rely less on privately run prisons, but Canada may be a land of opportunity for the two biggest firms
A recent crime bill means more Canadians will face longer prison sentences, and private prison firms from the US are aiming to offer their services. Photograph: Design Pics/Kelly Redinger/Getty Images
US private prison firms are targeting Canada for fresh opportunities as pressure builds at home on the troubled multi-billion dollar industry from human rights groups and legal actions, and as more states look to scale back their reliance on them. Two of the biggest operators in an industry once regarded as recession-proof, Geo Group and Management and Training Corporation (MTC), have been lobbying various government departments in the Canadian capital, Ottawa.
US states are beginning to rely less on privately run prisons, but Canada may be a land of opportunity for the two biggest firms
A recent crime bill means more Canadians will face longer prison sentences, and private prison firms from the US are aiming to offer their services. Photograph: Design Pics/Kelly Redinger/Getty ImagesUS private prison firms are targeting Canada for fresh opportunities as pressure builds at home on the troubled multi-billion dollar industry from human rights groups and legal actions, and as more states look to scale back their reliance on them. Two of the biggest operators in an industry once regarded as recession-proof, Geo Group and Management and Training Corporation (MTC), have been lobbying various government departments in the Canadian capital, Ottawa.
Prisoners’ voting rights and the European Court of Human Rights Scoppola v Italy (No 3)
Prisoners’ voting rights and the European Court of Human Rights
Scoppola v Italy (No 3)
s Coppola
Tory MP Patel and Rupert Murdoch in conspiracy
Tory MP Patel and Rupert Murdoch in conspiracy
Priti Patel is the secret love child of Idi Amin :-)
Priti Patel is the secret love child of Idi Amin :-)
The issue isn’t prisoners getting the vote ... it’s about who really governs Britain
Says Tory MP Pritti Patel
Big decisions ...
Europe has left Britain powerless
By PRITTI PATEL,
Conservative MP for Witham
Published: 24th May
2012
BARMY human rights laws and rulings from unaccountable judges at the European Court of Human Rights have left this country powerless to punish criminals and keep British people safe.
In recent months we’ve seen them block efforts
to deport hate preacher Abu Qatada and force us to release dangerous
foreign criminals on to our streets.
On Tuesday, they again demanded that this country
gives prisoners the right to vote, as they claim the ban violates
their human rights.
If Parliament does not comply within six months,
the bureaucrats have threatened to make taxpayers foot a
multi-million-pound bill to compensate criminals affected.
Europe’s latest attempt to bully this country
into submission and grant criminals the right to vote has little to
do with human rights — it is a disgraceful attack on our democracy.
The issue has gone beyond whether prisoners should
vote and is now one of who governs Britain — unelected European
judges or our democratically elected MPs?
Irate ... Pritti Patel CAMERA PRESS
The answer should be obvious. Parliament has
passed laws to prohibit convicted prisoners from voting, as part of
punishment for crimes so serious that they lost their liberty.
Last year, MPs voted overwhelmingly to keep the
ban.
The public are also against prisoners voting, our
domestic courts have rejected it and Prime Minster David Cameron says
he is sickened by it.
Only Europe’s unelected judges think that the
voting ban discriminates against prisoners and want to see murderers,
rapists, paedophiles and violent thugs given voting rights.
What has made this week’s judgement even more
alarming is that it flies in the face of an agreement last month to
reform the European Court of Human Rights.
That agreement, hailed by UK Justice Secretary Ken
Clarke, was meant to stop Europe’s judges meddling in reasonable
decisions reached by domestic courts.
It has clearly failed to do so, as this week’s
judgement yet again reveals Europe’s judges will stop at nothing in
their quest to grab ever more powers away from this country and its
people.
This leaves the Government with a simple
choice. It must stand up for the interests of the British people,
Parliament and democracy by keeping the ban on prisoners voting.
As most people in this country want to see laws
made in Britain, the Prime Minister would be widely supported if he
sent a resounding “No” to Europe.
He would also be praised if he pressed ahead with
scrapping current human rights laws and introduced instead a UK Bill
of Rights.
Not only would this action stop prisoners getting
the right to vote, it would prevent the European Court of Human
Rights from again meddling in our laws — and safeguard British
democracy.
Comment:
The issue for me is about getting convicted prisoners the vote.
So why is Priti Patel telling lies, and why is Rupert Murdoch publishing these lies?
According to administrative and constitutional law the Government governs Britain.
However, the way that some politicians suck up to Rupert Murdoch perhaps it is he who really governs Britain?
Perhaps, Priti Patel should have to explain her close links with the media to the Leveson inquiry?
Who is Priti Patel to claim that human rights laws are barmy? Before entering politics she studied economics. This hardly makes her a good judge on a legal issue. She did not become a MP on her merits, but because the Tory party wanted to create the impression that it was interested in diversity. A constituency was created and she was selected to represent it in Parliament. This kind of gerrymandering probably prevented a more competent person representing the electorate.
Patel fails to provide any evidence for her claims that the ECtHR judges are unaccountable and that Britain's criminal justice system is powerless to punish criminals, and that the State fails to protect the public. She lied, she lied, she lied
The ECtHR is right to consider whether a human rights violating State should deport someone to another human rights violating State where torture is widespread. Patel provides no evidence that Britain has been forced to release dangerous criminals on to our streets.
The ECtHR was right to reaffirm its ruling on prisoners votes.
The UK State, Executive, Parliament and Judiciary, has been found guilty of a human rights violation and added insult to injury by not providing a remedy to the victim and failing to prevent other victims suffering the same fate. The UK suggested to the ECtHR that in its view if damages for the loss of the vote should be paid then £1,000 was a fair price to pay. Had the UK done what it agreed to under our obligations in international law, then other victims would not have arisen and only £1,000 might have needed to have been paid. Now that £1,000 is likely to be multiplied by several thousand and the final bill is likely to be many millions of pounds. David Cameron has stated that he would rather pay compensation than give prisoners the vote. However, he is not rich enough for this and he is aware that the taxpayers will pick up the bill for his reckless attitude to human rights. He should do the right and honourable thing and resign. But the Bullingdon Club bully boy is too much of a coward to take responsibility for his actions.
The UK tried to bully the ECtHR to change its judgment on prisoners votes. However, the ECtHR stood up to the bullying UK State. The ECtHR is the guardian of human rights, democracy and rule of law for Europeans. What is disgraceful is Patel's and Murdoch's attack upon the ECtHR.
The issue went beyond whether prisoners should vote when the ECtHR decided the issue in the affirmative. It is not an issue of who governs Britain, this is spin by Patel and Murdoch. The ECtHR judges, unlike those in the UK, are elected. It is debateable whether Patel was democratically elected. As for the last general election, given that a large group of citizens were denied the franchise it calls into question the legitimacy of Parliament.
What is obvious is that either Patel has failed to grasp the issue or if she has then she is so corrupt that she is trying to corrupt the minds of the public. Subsequently to the UK passing a law to ban convicted prisoners from voting, this was challenged by me and the EHR ruled in my favour. The subsequent vote in the House of Commons by some MPs was in violation of European and international law, and the ECtHR was right not to give any weight to its legitimacy.
My challenge was against the UK State, and the State attempted to hide behind what it claimed public opinion stated. However, the ECtHR rejected this argument. In the consultation exercises conducted under the Labour administration, the public supported all convicted prisoners getting the vote. Once again Patel has proved to be a liar. The Administrative Court did reject my claim, but the court was subsequently found to be guilty of a human rights violation. David Cameron has misled Parliament with his physically ill claim, and breached the Ministerial Code by ignoring the ECtHR judgment in my case. It maybe that he is using Patel as a shield against his having to do the honourable thing and resign.
The elected judges of the ECtHR ruled that the blanket ban on voting was indiscriminate. The ECtHR ruled that my claim that it discriminated against convicted prisoners was not accepted under Article 14. The ECtHR wants to see those vulnerable to State abuse of power to be empowered by the franchise. This is only reasonable under the circumstances.
The Scoppola v Italy (No3) judgment merely reaffirmed the ECtHR ruling in my case. The ECtHR has been undergoing reform for over 10 years. The Interlaken, Izmir and Brighton Declarations called for reforms of certain Member States of the Council of Europe, those guilty of failing to comply with ECtHR judgments. The UK agreed the need to reform itself but has then failed to properly institute the needed reforms.
As I understand it, Kenneth Clarke warned that any reforms of the ECtHR advocated by some politicians and certain media would have to get the support of the other 46 Member States. The UK failed to achieve this at the Brighton Conference. The ECtHR does not concern itself with reasonable decisions reached by domestic courts, but it does concern itself with decisions which are not compatible with the human rights under the ECHR.
Clearly the UK failed to convince the other 46 Member States that its intentions were honourable. Scoppola also shows that the UK failed to convince the ECtHR that it should be allowed to continue its human rights abuse of convicted prisoners. As a Member State of the Council of Europe and European Union the UK State does not have the lawful power to abuse human rights. Patel shows how dishonest she is when she attempts to cloud the issue with references to the country and the people. It is clear incitement.
Patel then goes on to claim that my case leaves the Government with a simple choice. However, she then fails to state what that choice is. Unless she is referring to Hobson's Choice? A simple choice might be whether to buy a bar of milk chocolate or plain chocolate. Instead, Patel's type of choice is racist and xenophobic which is in keeping with Murdoch's The Sun policy of what constitutes as news. The ECHR is for all citizens in the UK and it is disingenous for her to state that the Government must only stand up for the interests of British people. She is not fit to judge what is in the interests of Parliament. Nor is she competent as a Cameron "A Lister" to decide what is in the interests of democracy. Patel advocates what Murdoch advocates and that is to retain the blanket ban on convicted prisoners from voting. She does not represent her constituents but instead represents Murdoch's interests. The interests of human rights, democracy and rule of law means that she and Murdoch are wrong on this issue. It is in the interests of Parliament to honour the UK's international law treaties, and comply with the ECtHR judgment in my case.
Parliament does make laws in Britain. I suspect that most people in this country are aware of this fact which appears to have escaped Patel's mind. Perhaps, she has been brainwashed by Murdoch? In any event, I doubt that David Cameron would get a vote of confidence from the electorate at the next general election if he says no to the ECtHR on the issue of human rights. This would be the conduct of a dictator and not a democratically elected leader of the Government. The electorate did not vote to give the Tories a majority because they felt that they could not be trusted with too much public power.
Only those in support of a dictator and a dictatorship would praise the scrapping of human rights laws. A UK Bill of Rights which does not come up to the fundamental human rights in the ECHR would not satisfy the criteria for membership of the Council of Europe nor the EU nor the UN. The UK State would be declared a rogue or pariah State, and face sanctions of ever greater severity until the UK State toed the line of acceptable conduct. What Patel is advocating is that the UK State should behave like the dictatorial regime in Belarus. Patel is a poor quality spin doctor, just like Clarence Mitchell was for the McCanns. Repeating a lie many times does not make it the truth. Patel shows lack of good judgement in representing the phone hacker of Milly Dowler.
Saying no to the ECtHR will not stop prisoners getting the vote.The ECtHR does not meddle in the UK's laws. Rather, the ECtHR acts as a safeguard against Member States abuse of human rights. The 3 objectives of the Council of Europe are Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law. In my case the ECtHR found that the UK State has failed to achieve all 3 of these objectives. Maintaining the status quo does not safeguard British democracy. It protects a dictatorship. Idi Amin would be proud of his love child's support for a dictatorship :-)
Comment:
The issue for me is about getting convicted prisoners the vote.
So why is Priti Patel telling lies, and why is Rupert Murdoch publishing these lies?
According to administrative and constitutional law the Government governs Britain.
However, the way that some politicians suck up to Rupert Murdoch perhaps it is he who really governs Britain?
Perhaps, Priti Patel should have to explain her close links with the media to the Leveson inquiry?
Who is Priti Patel to claim that human rights laws are barmy? Before entering politics she studied economics. This hardly makes her a good judge on a legal issue. She did not become a MP on her merits, but because the Tory party wanted to create the impression that it was interested in diversity. A constituency was created and she was selected to represent it in Parliament. This kind of gerrymandering probably prevented a more competent person representing the electorate.
Patel fails to provide any evidence for her claims that the ECtHR judges are unaccountable and that Britain's criminal justice system is powerless to punish criminals, and that the State fails to protect the public. She lied, she lied, she lied
The ECtHR is right to consider whether a human rights violating State should deport someone to another human rights violating State where torture is widespread. Patel provides no evidence that Britain has been forced to release dangerous criminals on to our streets.
The ECtHR was right to reaffirm its ruling on prisoners votes.
The UK State, Executive, Parliament and Judiciary, has been found guilty of a human rights violation and added insult to injury by not providing a remedy to the victim and failing to prevent other victims suffering the same fate. The UK suggested to the ECtHR that in its view if damages for the loss of the vote should be paid then £1,000 was a fair price to pay. Had the UK done what it agreed to under our obligations in international law, then other victims would not have arisen and only £1,000 might have needed to have been paid. Now that £1,000 is likely to be multiplied by several thousand and the final bill is likely to be many millions of pounds. David Cameron has stated that he would rather pay compensation than give prisoners the vote. However, he is not rich enough for this and he is aware that the taxpayers will pick up the bill for his reckless attitude to human rights. He should do the right and honourable thing and resign. But the Bullingdon Club bully boy is too much of a coward to take responsibility for his actions.
The UK tried to bully the ECtHR to change its judgment on prisoners votes. However, the ECtHR stood up to the bullying UK State. The ECtHR is the guardian of human rights, democracy and rule of law for Europeans. What is disgraceful is Patel's and Murdoch's attack upon the ECtHR.
The issue went beyond whether prisoners should vote when the ECtHR decided the issue in the affirmative. It is not an issue of who governs Britain, this is spin by Patel and Murdoch. The ECtHR judges, unlike those in the UK, are elected. It is debateable whether Patel was democratically elected. As for the last general election, given that a large group of citizens were denied the franchise it calls into question the legitimacy of Parliament.
What is obvious is that either Patel has failed to grasp the issue or if she has then she is so corrupt that she is trying to corrupt the minds of the public. Subsequently to the UK passing a law to ban convicted prisoners from voting, this was challenged by me and the EHR ruled in my favour. The subsequent vote in the House of Commons by some MPs was in violation of European and international law, and the ECtHR was right not to give any weight to its legitimacy.
My challenge was against the UK State, and the State attempted to hide behind what it claimed public opinion stated. However, the ECtHR rejected this argument. In the consultation exercises conducted under the Labour administration, the public supported all convicted prisoners getting the vote. Once again Patel has proved to be a liar. The Administrative Court did reject my claim, but the court was subsequently found to be guilty of a human rights violation. David Cameron has misled Parliament with his physically ill claim, and breached the Ministerial Code by ignoring the ECtHR judgment in my case. It maybe that he is using Patel as a shield against his having to do the honourable thing and resign.
The elected judges of the ECtHR ruled that the blanket ban on voting was indiscriminate. The ECtHR ruled that my claim that it discriminated against convicted prisoners was not accepted under Article 14. The ECtHR wants to see those vulnerable to State abuse of power to be empowered by the franchise. This is only reasonable under the circumstances.
The Scoppola v Italy (No3) judgment merely reaffirmed the ECtHR ruling in my case. The ECtHR has been undergoing reform for over 10 years. The Interlaken, Izmir and Brighton Declarations called for reforms of certain Member States of the Council of Europe, those guilty of failing to comply with ECtHR judgments. The UK agreed the need to reform itself but has then failed to properly institute the needed reforms.
As I understand it, Kenneth Clarke warned that any reforms of the ECtHR advocated by some politicians and certain media would have to get the support of the other 46 Member States. The UK failed to achieve this at the Brighton Conference. The ECtHR does not concern itself with reasonable decisions reached by domestic courts, but it does concern itself with decisions which are not compatible with the human rights under the ECHR.
Clearly the UK failed to convince the other 46 Member States that its intentions were honourable. Scoppola also shows that the UK failed to convince the ECtHR that it should be allowed to continue its human rights abuse of convicted prisoners. As a Member State of the Council of Europe and European Union the UK State does not have the lawful power to abuse human rights. Patel shows how dishonest she is when she attempts to cloud the issue with references to the country and the people. It is clear incitement.
Patel then goes on to claim that my case leaves the Government with a simple choice. However, she then fails to state what that choice is. Unless she is referring to Hobson's Choice? A simple choice might be whether to buy a bar of milk chocolate or plain chocolate. Instead, Patel's type of choice is racist and xenophobic which is in keeping with Murdoch's The Sun policy of what constitutes as news. The ECHR is for all citizens in the UK and it is disingenous for her to state that the Government must only stand up for the interests of British people. She is not fit to judge what is in the interests of Parliament. Nor is she competent as a Cameron "A Lister" to decide what is in the interests of democracy. Patel advocates what Murdoch advocates and that is to retain the blanket ban on convicted prisoners from voting. She does not represent her constituents but instead represents Murdoch's interests. The interests of human rights, democracy and rule of law means that she and Murdoch are wrong on this issue. It is in the interests of Parliament to honour the UK's international law treaties, and comply with the ECtHR judgment in my case.
Parliament does make laws in Britain. I suspect that most people in this country are aware of this fact which appears to have escaped Patel's mind. Perhaps, she has been brainwashed by Murdoch? In any event, I doubt that David Cameron would get a vote of confidence from the electorate at the next general election if he says no to the ECtHR on the issue of human rights. This would be the conduct of a dictator and not a democratically elected leader of the Government. The electorate did not vote to give the Tories a majority because they felt that they could not be trusted with too much public power.
Only those in support of a dictator and a dictatorship would praise the scrapping of human rights laws. A UK Bill of Rights which does not come up to the fundamental human rights in the ECHR would not satisfy the criteria for membership of the Council of Europe nor the EU nor the UN. The UK State would be declared a rogue or pariah State, and face sanctions of ever greater severity until the UK State toed the line of acceptable conduct. What Patel is advocating is that the UK State should behave like the dictatorial regime in Belarus. Patel is a poor quality spin doctor, just like Clarence Mitchell was for the McCanns. Repeating a lie many times does not make it the truth. Patel shows lack of good judgement in representing the phone hacker of Milly Dowler.
Saying no to the ECtHR will not stop prisoners getting the vote.The ECtHR does not meddle in the UK's laws. Rather, the ECtHR acts as a safeguard against Member States abuse of human rights. The 3 objectives of the Council of Europe are Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law. In my case the ECtHR found that the UK State has failed to achieve all 3 of these objectives. Maintaining the status quo does not safeguard British democracy. It protects a dictatorship. Idi Amin would be proud of his love child's support for a dictatorship :-)
Monday, June 18, 2012
Follow-up to Brighton conference on future of the ECHR
Follow-up to Brighton conference on future of the ECHR
·
National
implementation. As
approved, the declaration affirmed “the strong commitment of the States Parties
to fulfill their primary responsibility to implement the Convention at national
level” (para. 9 a); called for the establishment of independent national human
rights institutions where they don’t already exist (para. 9 c) and encouraged
states to translate ECHR judgments into national languages (para. 9 d) and make
full use of Council of Europe technical assistance (para. 9
e).
· Subsidiarity and margin of appreciation. The declaration called for an amendment to the Convention to include in the preamble a “reference” to the concepts of the margin of appreciation and subsidiarity, without defining them, as guiding principles for the Court in its task of interpreting and applying the Convention. We opposed the inclusion of principles of judicial interpretation in the Convention. The actual effect of this change will depend on the use that the Court will make of the “reference” to these principles.
· Advisory opinions. The Committee of Ministers is asked to draft an optional protocol on advisory opinions (para. 12 d). There is still no consensus among member states on the usefulness of advisory opinions.
· Admissibility. The declaration encouraged the Court to take a strict and consistent approach to admissibility if the application has been duly considered by a national court applying the Convention in light of the well-established case law of the Court, unless the application raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention. (para. 15 d). The Court has repeatedly indicated that this is already their practice to reject cases that have been properly reviewed by a domestic court.
· Six month time limit. In addition, the Declaration called for amendment to the Convention to reduce the application deadline after exhausting domestic remedies from 6 to 4 months. (para. 15 a). We regret this amendment as the shortened deadline could be harder to respect in cases where applicants are detained or do not have easy access to the Internet.
· Significant Disadvantage. The Court will be permitted to use the “no significant disadvantage” test in holding a case inadmissible, even where it has not been considered by a domestic court (para. 15 c).
· Additional resources. The declaration only foresees the possibility to recruit additional judges. The text simply invites the Committee of Ministers to consider whether more effective measures will be needed.
· Execution of judgments. The Declaration (i) affirmed that “The Committee of Ministers … should ensure that States parties quickly and effectively implement pilot judgments” (para. 27), (ii) encouraged States parties “to develop domestic capacities and mechanisms to ensure the rapid execution of the Court’s judgments” (para. 29(a)(i)) and “to make action plans for the execution of judgments as widely accessible as possible” (para. 29(a)(ii)), and (ii) invited the Committee of Ministers to consider “how to refine its procedures so as to ensure effective supervision of the execution of judgments” (para. 29(c)) and “whether more effective measures are needed in respect of States that fail to implement judgments of the Court in a timely manner.” (para. 29(d)).
· National implementation of the Convention. As the Committee of Ministers will review states’ reports on implementation of the Interlaken Declaration, it would be really valuable to get your perspective on the actual level of implementation of the Convention and execution of judgments in your country.
· Further Reform of the Convention System. We are looking into possibilities to better help the Court dealing with its backlog of cases, and also ways in which the procedures before the Committee of Ministers can be improved to improve implementation of the Court’s judgments. This includes greater engagement of civil society.
Dear colleagues,
We write to thank you
for your support in the lead-up to the Brighton Conference earlier this year.
The joint
statement on reform of the European Convention on Human Rights had a
strong impact on delegations, such that many of the measures in the final
version of the Brighton
Declaration were considerably improved from the initial draft. However,
some proposals that would have assisted applicants, such as giving the Committee
of Minsters the power to order sanctions against Member States for failing to
implement judgments, were dropped during the negotiations. Highlights include
the following:
· Subsidiarity and margin of appreciation. The declaration called for an amendment to the Convention to include in the preamble a “reference” to the concepts of the margin of appreciation and subsidiarity, without defining them, as guiding principles for the Court in its task of interpreting and applying the Convention. We opposed the inclusion of principles of judicial interpretation in the Convention. The actual effect of this change will depend on the use that the Court will make of the “reference” to these principles.
· Advisory opinions. The Committee of Ministers is asked to draft an optional protocol on advisory opinions (para. 12 d). There is still no consensus among member states on the usefulness of advisory opinions.
· Admissibility. The declaration encouraged the Court to take a strict and consistent approach to admissibility if the application has been duly considered by a national court applying the Convention in light of the well-established case law of the Court, unless the application raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention. (para. 15 d). The Court has repeatedly indicated that this is already their practice to reject cases that have been properly reviewed by a domestic court.
· Six month time limit. In addition, the Declaration called for amendment to the Convention to reduce the application deadline after exhausting domestic remedies from 6 to 4 months. (para. 15 a). We regret this amendment as the shortened deadline could be harder to respect in cases where applicants are detained or do not have easy access to the Internet.
· Significant Disadvantage. The Court will be permitted to use the “no significant disadvantage” test in holding a case inadmissible, even where it has not been considered by a domestic court (para. 15 c).
· Additional resources. The declaration only foresees the possibility to recruit additional judges. The text simply invites the Committee of Ministers to consider whether more effective measures will be needed.
· Execution of judgments. The Declaration (i) affirmed that “The Committee of Ministers … should ensure that States parties quickly and effectively implement pilot judgments” (para. 27), (ii) encouraged States parties “to develop domestic capacities and mechanisms to ensure the rapid execution of the Court’s judgments” (para. 29(a)(i)) and “to make action plans for the execution of judgments as widely accessible as possible” (para. 29(a)(ii)), and (ii) invited the Committee of Ministers to consider “how to refine its procedures so as to ensure effective supervision of the execution of judgments” (para. 29(c)) and “whether more effective measures are needed in respect of States that fail to implement judgments of the Court in a timely manner.” (para. 29(d)).
Next
steps
Going forward, we will
continue our advocacy efforts on the future of the ECHR and we would also
welcome any ideas and contributions, in particular in two complementary
directions:
· National implementation of the Convention. As the Committee of Ministers will review states’ reports on implementation of the Interlaken Declaration, it would be really valuable to get your perspective on the actual level of implementation of the Convention and execution of judgments in your country.
· Further Reform of the Convention System. We are looking into possibilities to better help the Court dealing with its backlog of cases, and also ways in which the procedures before the Committee of Ministers can be improved to improve implementation of the Court’s judgments. This includes greater engagement of civil society.
If you would like to
contribute your ideas, please respond to Claire
Fernandez, claire8.fernandez@gmail.com.
Yours
sincerely,
James A.
Goldston
Executive
Director
Open Society Justice
Initiative
400 West 59th
Street
New York, NY
10019
tel: +1 212 548
0118
fax: +1 212 548
4662
e-mail: jgoldston@justiceinitiative.org
website: www.justiceinitiative.org
twitter:
@JamesAGoldston
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Thirteen dead in Turkish prison fire
Thirteen dead in Turkish prison fire
Thirteen prisoners have died and five others have been taken to hospital after a fire broke out in a prison in southeast Turkey, officials said.
The victims suffocated after inmates set bedding alight at the jail in Sanliurfa province.
The fire was brought under control before it spread to the rest of the jail, which houses about 1,000 inmates.
Turkish media said the blaze took place during a mutiny, but the local governor denied the claim.
Governor Celalettin Guvenc told Reuters that the blaze took place following a row between the inmates.
It took one-and-a-half hours before the blaze was extinguised, the news agency reports.
Those detained at Sanliurfa include political prisoners, reports say.
Ibrahim Ayhan, a member of parliament from the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP), was among those in the jail but was not believed to have been harmed, broadcaster NTV said.
Thirteen prisoners have died and five others have been taken to hospital after a fire broke out in a prison in southeast Turkey, officials said.
The victims suffocated after inmates set bedding alight at the jail in Sanliurfa province.
The fire was brought under control before it spread to the rest of the jail, which houses about 1,000 inmates.
Turkish media said the blaze took place during a mutiny, but the local governor denied the claim.
Governor Celalettin Guvenc told Reuters that the blaze took place following a row between the inmates.
It took one-and-a-half hours before the blaze was extinguised, the news agency reports.
Those detained at Sanliurfa include political prisoners, reports say.
Ibrahim Ayhan, a member of parliament from the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP), was among those in the jail but was not believed to have been harmed, broadcaster NTV said.
Animal pictures of the week: 15 June 2012
Animal pictures of the week: 15 June 2012
An owl tilts its head and gives a birdwatcher a cheeky wink in a forest on U-am-san Mountain in Cheongju City, South KoreaPicture: Jungwoo Noh / Barcroft Media
Three baby Little Owls anxiously peer out from their nest hoping to catch a glimpse of their mother bringing back dinner. Wildlife photographer Richard Peters photographed the owlets on farmland in Sussex.Picture: Richard Peters / Rex Features
An owl tilts its head and gives a birdwatcher a cheeky wink in a forest on U-am-san Mountain in Cheongju City, South KoreaPicture: Jungwoo Noh / Barcroft Media
Three baby Little Owls anxiously peer out from their nest hoping to catch a glimpse of their mother bringing back dinner. Wildlife photographer Richard Peters photographed the owlets on farmland in Sussex.Picture: Richard Peters / Rex Features
Friday, June 15, 2012
That's entertainment!
That's entertainment!
Yesterday I bought the Borstal Boy DVD for £1.50 and The Last Night Of The Proms by The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra recorded in 1997 CD for £1.00 from Dove Hospice charity shop.
Yesterday I bought the Borstal Boy DVD for £1.50 and The Last Night Of The Proms by The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra recorded in 1997 CD for £1.00 from Dove Hospice charity shop.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Wildlife photographs by Andy Rouse, winner of the Cherry Kearton Medal
Wildlife photographs by Andy Rouse, winner of the Cherry Kearton Medal
A snowy owl sits on a post in Arctic CanadaPicture: Andy Rouse / Rex Features
Barn owl (Tyto alba) hunting, UKPicture: Andy Rouse / Rex Features
A snowy owl sits on a post in Arctic CanadaPicture: Andy Rouse / Rex Features
Barn owl (Tyto alba) hunting, UKPicture: Andy Rouse / Rex Features
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
If Theresa May shows such lack of understanding of the law should she be the Home Secretary?
If Theresa May shows such lack of understanding of the law should she be the Home Secretary?
Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
The media has campaigned long and hard against Article 8 of the ECHR.
The Leveson inquiry is investigating the too cosy and close relationship between the media and politicians.
On Sunday the media, specifically Rupert Murdoch's The Sunday Times and the BBC's Andrew Marr Show reported upon Theresa May's oral statement to the House of Commons which she did not make until Monday afternoon.
Why did Theresa May report first to the media and only secondly to the HoC? It maybe recalled that Theresa May also went to the media first to announce her intention to strike a blow against Abu Qatada. This only blew up in her face when she erred with the ECtHR deadline for Abu Qatada to launch an appeal to the ECtHR.
Once again Theresa May has erred in relation to the ECHR.
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Therefore Theresa May has no justification for misleading Parliament with her oral statement. The misleading part of her statement states: "The convention allows the state to interfere in the exercise of article 8 rights when it is in the public interest to do so, and when the interference is proportionate to the public interest being pursued".
A reading of Article 8 above does not, I repeat does not, include the vague term "in the public interest". It would appear that Theresa May is attempting to hide behind the public. This is a deception. When an applicant engages an Article of the ECHR it is a case of the Individual v The State. The UK State is the Executive, Parliament and Judiciary. The public are not part of the State. The public need to be vigilant when one or more arms of the State seeks to hide behind the public, and announce in very clear terms the statement: "not in our name".
It could well be that Theresa May is not acting in the public interests at all, but is instead acting in the interests of the media.
"Article 8 is clearly a qualified right, but Parliament has never set out how it should be qualified in practice. So, for too long, the courts have been left to decide cases under article 8 without the view of Parliament, and to develop public policy through case law. It is time to fill the vacuum and put the law back on the side of the British public, so we are changing the immigration rules to establish that if someone is a serious criminal, and if they have not behaved according to the standards that we expect in this country, claiming a right to a family life will not get in the way of their deportation. If a foreign criminal has received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more, deportation will normally be proportionate. Even if a criminal has received a shorter sentence, deportation will still normally be proportionate if their offending has caused serious harm or if they are a persistent offender who shows particular disregard for the law. For the most serious foreign criminals—those sentenced to four or more years in prison—article 8 rights will prevent deportation only in the most exceptional of circumstances".
Theresa May's statement above misconstrues the European and international law and HRA position.
Article 8 is not an absolute right because the human right in (1) can be restricted by the qualifications in (2). Human rights law, including the ECHR, is generally on the side of all citizens within Member States. This includes foreigners within Member States and is not restricted to nationals within Member States, therefore Theresa May's reference to only the British public is an attempt to mislead the public, media and Parliament. It maybe that Theresa May is being both racist and xenophobic.
Those human rights under the ECHR which are not absolute start with the human right followed by the exceptions. What Theresa May is attempting to do is rewrite the HRA and ECHR and turn it upside down by putting the exceptions first and secondly, exceptionally, allowing the human right. This would be unlawful under the HRA and ECHR.
If Theresa May shows such lack of understanding of the law should she be the Home Secretary?
Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
The media has campaigned long and hard against Article 8 of the ECHR.
The Leveson inquiry is investigating the too cosy and close relationship between the media and politicians.
On Sunday the media, specifically Rupert Murdoch's The Sunday Times and the BBC's Andrew Marr Show reported upon Theresa May's oral statement to the House of Commons which she did not make until Monday afternoon.
Why did Theresa May report first to the media and only secondly to the HoC? It maybe recalled that Theresa May also went to the media first to announce her intention to strike a blow against Abu Qatada. This only blew up in her face when she erred with the ECtHR deadline for Abu Qatada to launch an appeal to the ECtHR.
Once again Theresa May has erred in relation to the ECHR.
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Therefore Theresa May has no justification for misleading Parliament with her oral statement. The misleading part of her statement states: "The convention allows the state to interfere in the exercise of article 8 rights when it is in the public interest to do so, and when the interference is proportionate to the public interest being pursued".
A reading of Article 8 above does not, I repeat does not, include the vague term "in the public interest". It would appear that Theresa May is attempting to hide behind the public. This is a deception. When an applicant engages an Article of the ECHR it is a case of the Individual v The State. The UK State is the Executive, Parliament and Judiciary. The public are not part of the State. The public need to be vigilant when one or more arms of the State seeks to hide behind the public, and announce in very clear terms the statement: "not in our name".
It could well be that Theresa May is not acting in the public interests at all, but is instead acting in the interests of the media.
"Article 8 is clearly a qualified right, but Parliament has never set out how it should be qualified in practice. So, for too long, the courts have been left to decide cases under article 8 without the view of Parliament, and to develop public policy through case law. It is time to fill the vacuum and put the law back on the side of the British public, so we are changing the immigration rules to establish that if someone is a serious criminal, and if they have not behaved according to the standards that we expect in this country, claiming a right to a family life will not get in the way of their deportation. If a foreign criminal has received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more, deportation will normally be proportionate. Even if a criminal has received a shorter sentence, deportation will still normally be proportionate if their offending has caused serious harm or if they are a persistent offender who shows particular disregard for the law. For the most serious foreign criminals—those sentenced to four or more years in prison—article 8 rights will prevent deportation only in the most exceptional of circumstances".
Theresa May's statement above misconstrues the European and international law and HRA position.
Article 8 is not an absolute right because the human right in (1) can be restricted by the qualifications in (2). Human rights law, including the ECHR, is generally on the side of all citizens within Member States. This includes foreigners within Member States and is not restricted to nationals within Member States, therefore Theresa May's reference to only the British public is an attempt to mislead the public, media and Parliament. It maybe that Theresa May is being both racist and xenophobic.
Those human rights under the ECHR which are not absolute start with the human right followed by the exceptions. What Theresa May is attempting to do is rewrite the HRA and ECHR and turn it upside down by putting the exceptions first and secondly, exceptionally, allowing the human right. This would be unlawful under the HRA and ECHR.
If Theresa May shows such lack of understanding of the law should she be the Home Secretary?
Monday, June 11, 2012
Sent an email to EU
Sent an email to EU
Hirst v UK (No2) established the human right to vote. Greens and MT v UK extended this to include the European elections. The UK has ignored the ECtHR decisions. The Council of Europe has no enforcement powers. Is it possible to challenge the UK's failure to act in the CJEU?
The UK has a policy which means that released life sentence prisoners are not permitted to travel abroad without the permission of the MoJ. No other EU country has this policy. It means that those in the UK cannot get jobs in other EU countries whereas other EU ex-prisoners can get jobs in the UK. Can this policy be challenged in the CJEU?
Hirst v UK (No2) established the human right to vote. Greens and MT v UK extended this to include the European elections. The UK has ignored the ECtHR decisions. The Council of Europe has no enforcement powers. Is it possible to challenge the UK's failure to act in the CJEU?
The UK has a policy which means that released life sentence prisoners are not permitted to travel abroad without the permission of the MoJ. No other EU country has this policy. It means that those in the UK cannot get jobs in other EU countries whereas other EU ex-prisoners can get jobs in the UK. Can this policy be challenged in the CJEU?
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Human rights round up
Human rights round up
If the PM caves in to the European Court of Human Rights' six-month deadline for the UK to grant votes for prisoners, it will be just in time for convicts to vote in the November 15 elections for local police chiefs. Which means candidates could tour jails to canvass for votes. Of course Cameron will do a U Turn.
Given that it is obvious that the right to family life under the ECHR is not absolute, it is obvious that Theresa May is up to no good seeking a declaration to this effect. It would appear that she is seeking to prohibit anyone from claiming a right to family life under the ECHR. It would appear that she is attempting to usurp the independence of the Judiciary by telling judges to ignore the ECHR in favour of Home Office guidelines on the subject. Home secretary says legislation could be passed if judges ignore Commons motion declaring that right to family life is not absolute. The HoC motion is not binding upon the Judiciary. The threat of legislation is a bluff. The Judiciary should call her bluff. The only way that the UK can legally ignore the ECHR is to withdraw from the Council of Europe.
60% of Telegraph readers support the torture regime in Guantanamo Bay.
If the PM caves in to the European Court of Human Rights' six-month deadline for the UK to grant votes for prisoners, it will be just in time for convicts to vote in the November 15 elections for local police chiefs. Which means candidates could tour jails to canvass for votes. Of course Cameron will do a U Turn.
Given that it is obvious that the right to family life under the ECHR is not absolute, it is obvious that Theresa May is up to no good seeking a declaration to this effect. It would appear that she is seeking to prohibit anyone from claiming a right to family life under the ECHR. It would appear that she is attempting to usurp the independence of the Judiciary by telling judges to ignore the ECHR in favour of Home Office guidelines on the subject. Home secretary says legislation could be passed if judges ignore Commons motion declaring that right to family life is not absolute. The HoC motion is not binding upon the Judiciary. The threat of legislation is a bluff. The Judiciary should call her bluff. The only way that the UK can legally ignore the ECHR is to withdraw from the Council of Europe.
60% of Telegraph readers support the torture regime in Guantanamo Bay.
Saturday, June 09, 2012
Prisoners' right to vote
Prisoners' right to vote
Prisoners' right to vote
Comment:
It is unclear why Gladkov v. Russia (no. 15162/05) has taken the ECtHR so long to list it for a hearing given that it involves a blanket ban on voting as was the case with Hirst No2.
It is also unclear why and upon what authority the ECtHR gave the UK a delay in complying with Greens until 6 months after Scoppola was decided.
Given that Greens is a pilot judgment procedure to highlight the UK's systemic failure in not complying with Hirst No2, and lay down what is required to comply and to set a 6 month time limit on compliance, it beggars belief that the ECtHR extended the time limit in the UK's favour.
The UK's submissions in Scoppola were rejected by the ECtHR, therefore the extended time limit cannot be justified. It has been claimed that the extension also applied to Hirst No2. However, the UK has already had over 6 years extended time to comply with Hirst No2.
When does justice delayed is justice denied kick in?
It appears that the ECtHR is sacrificing human rights, democracy and rule of law to appease the human rights violating States of Russia and the UK.
Friday, June 08, 2012
Human Rights Council Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Thirteenth session
Human Rights Council Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Thirteenth session
Human Rights Council Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Thirteenth session
Thursday, June 07, 2012
Why prisoners should be given the right to vote
Why prisoners should be given the right to vote
Denying voting rights to criminals who receive a custodial sentence is dehumanising and hinders rehabilitation
Caspar Walsh
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 5 June 2012 13.30 BST
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that some prisoners in the UK should be given the right to vote. Photograph: Chris Young/PA
There are plenty of voters who believe that prisoners convicted of crimes and receiving a custodial sentence should not have the right to vote. They should be punished, voting rights removed, do their time, put up and shut up.
However, many people think prison should be about rehabilitation; a place to create opportunities for healing and personal transformation otherwise absent in the often highly dysfunctional and damaged lives of many prisoners.
Denying voting rights to criminals who receive a custodial sentence is dehumanising and hinders rehabilitation
Caspar Walsh
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 5 June 2012 13.30 BST
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that some prisoners in the UK should be given the right to vote. Photograph: Chris Young/PAThere are plenty of voters who believe that prisoners convicted of crimes and receiving a custodial sentence should not have the right to vote. They should be punished, voting rights removed, do their time, put up and shut up.
However, many people think prison should be about rehabilitation; a place to create opportunities for healing and personal transformation otherwise absent in the often highly dysfunctional and damaged lives of many prisoners.
Wednesday, June 06, 2012
Prisoners' right to vote: Should UK succumb to EU pressure and give criminals a say in society?
Prisoners' right to vote: Should UK succumb to EU pressure and give criminals a say in society?
Posted Tuesday, June 5, 2012 - 06:41
By Matt Jones
PRISON VOTE: Right or wrong?
When John Hirst returned to his lodgings on June 23 1979, he could not have anticipated that the events of that day would lead to a radical upheaval of prisoners’ rights in the UK.
Mr Justice Purchase, when sentencing Hirst to life imprisonment for the manslaughter of his landlady Bronia Burton, described him as ‘an arrogant and dangerous person with a severe personality defect’.
Despite these 'flaws', as well as his capacity for horrific violence, in October 2005 he won his case at the European court of human rights in Strasbourg, where it was unanimously found that the UK’s blanket ban on voting contravened Article 3, Protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights.
Since the court case, successive governments have ignored or sidestepped European pressure to take action, and while MPs have loudly voiced their objections to the ruling, rejecting it by 234 votes to 22 last year, it seems that the European Court’s deadline in six months time is a final one.
A recent YouGov poll found that 67% of Brits are against allowing prisoners vote, though MM revealed in last week’s Piccadilly Pulse that Mancunians are a more forgiving bunch, with 55% supporting the enfranchisement of convicts.
Conservative MP David Davis, who has been noisily critical of the European ultimatum, said: "This will inevitably lead to a clash between the express wishes of the UK Parliament and the assertions of the European Court.”
When their express wishes are to uphold the ban on sentenced prisoners voting though, a relic of the British legal system and an antiquated, draconian law dating from 1870, the European Court’s assertions become indispensible rather than intrusive.
It was conceived by the Victorians in an era when it was common practice to forced death-sentenced prisoners to share their cells with the coffins that would later hold their corpses.
Prisoners become temporary outcasts from society but not from our system of rights and democracy, and though an inmate’s dignity and self-worth may be lost with the fall of the gavel, their humanity will wearily soldier on.
Student Cat Hall, 19, of Fallowfield, said: “They are human beings after all. They are still UK citizens, and therefore they are affected by the UK’s political issues.”
It seems as though those who deny prisoners’ right to vote do not fully understand the purpose of incarceration.
While a stint in jail acts as a stern punishment, they are as institutions not intended to wreak a medieval vengeance upon those confined within its walls.
More important, however, is its rehabilitative role, to help foster social responsibility in those who have flaunted it.
One of the objectives of Her Majesty's Prison Service is 'providing safe and well-ordered establishments in which we treat prisoners humanely, decently and lawfully'.
To treat them humanely, though, necessitates acknowledging their humanity.
“People have to see themselves engaged with the society they are part of,” said Frances Crook, Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, the UK’s oldest penal reform charity.
“Being part of the decision-making process is part of being a responsible citizen. Giving the vote is one small step in being engaged with civic power.”
Retired soldier Alfred Kerr, 45, of Wythenshawe, stated: “As soon as you break the law, all your rights should be taken from you, and anyone who thinks otherwise should be locked up too.”
If it is true, as former Conservative MP Jonathan Aitken asserts, that ‘the vast majority of prisoners do not even want to vote’, then many will wonder why the incident has caused such a furore.
The right of a citizen, though, does not diminish in relevance or legitimacy the longer it is denied.
Student Daniel Locke, 22, of Rusholme, said: “Democracy is the right to vote for everybody, not just the people you agree with.”
Prisoners are allowed to vote in 14 European countries, including Ireland, Spain and Sweden, and there are 16 more where prisoners have limited voting rights, including Germany, France and Italy.
Our nation’s stance on the rights of prisoners has put us in rather ignominious company.
The only other members of the EU who still deny voting rights to sentenced prisoners are Bulgaria and Romania, the worst performing countries on the Human Development Index, which takes into account levels of poverty, education and health, as well as Hungary and Estonia, who fare little better.
It is telling that we are resolutely clinging to a law upheld by some of the continent’s least developed countries.
Mr Cameron, who has taken a defiant stance on the issue, stated: "It makes me physically ill to contemplate giving the vote to prisoners.
“They should lose some rights, including the right to vote."
It would make most feel more than a little queasy, that some of the country’s most dangerous and disturbed criminals could indelibly influence Britain’s political landscape.
However, with their potential newfound democratic heft prisoners could well feel physically ill at the thought of endorsing Mr Cameron with the votes he so eagerly denies them.
It may be the case that those amongst the country’s 88,000 condemned who gain the right to vote will use it against the ConDems.
How prisoners will vote, though, pales in significance to what having the vote will mean.
The issues of overcrowding, expense and violence, constants in a prisoner’s day, would instantly become more politically pertinent.
The ability to vote in local elections will necessitate a change in the relationship between convicts and local government, as well as focusing attention on regional successes in terms of employment and resettlement.
Many people with the capacity to inflict pain and suffering would still have the capacity to make reasoned and rational decisions at the ballot box.
Much in the same way, sensible and judicious individuals will impose suffering and inadequacy on others as we do by denying prisoners the vote, an electoral stepping stone to a functioning role in society.
Mancunian Matters would like to apologise to John Hirst for any inaccuracies that occured in the original reporting of this story, and thank him for his help with the piece.
When John Hirst returned to his lodgings on June 23 1979, he could not have anticipated that the events of that day would lead to a radical upheaval of prisoners’ rights in the UK.
Mr Justice Purchase, when sentencing Hirst to life imprisonment for the manslaughter of his landlady Bronia Burton, described him as ‘an arrogant and dangerous person with a severe personality defect’.
Despite these 'flaws', as well as his capacity for horrific violence, in October 2005 he won his case at the European court of human rights in Strasbourg, where it was unanimously found that the UK’s blanket ban on voting contravened Article 3, Protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights.
Since the court case, successive governments have ignored or sidestepped European pressure to take action, and while MPs have loudly voiced their objections to the ruling, rejecting it by 234 votes to 22 last year, it seems that the European Court’s deadline in six months time is a final one.
A recent YouGov poll found that 67% of Brits are against allowing prisoners vote, though MM revealed in last week’s Piccadilly Pulse that Mancunians are a more forgiving bunch, with 55% supporting the enfranchisement of convicts.
Conservative MP David Davis, who has been noisily critical of the European ultimatum, said: "This will inevitably lead to a clash between the express wishes of the UK Parliament and the assertions of the European Court.”
When their express wishes are to uphold the ban on sentenced prisoners voting though, a relic of the British legal system and an antiquated, draconian law dating from 1870, the European Court’s assertions become indispensible rather than intrusive.
It was conceived by the Victorians in an era when it was common practice to forced death-sentenced prisoners to share their cells with the coffins that would later hold their corpses.
Prisoners become temporary outcasts from society but not from our system of rights and democracy, and though an inmate’s dignity and self-worth may be lost with the fall of the gavel, their humanity will wearily soldier on.
Student Cat Hall, 19, of Fallowfield, said: “They are human beings after all. They are still UK citizens, and therefore they are affected by the UK’s political issues.”
It seems as though those who deny prisoners’ right to vote do not fully understand the purpose of incarceration.
While a stint in jail acts as a stern punishment, they are as institutions not intended to wreak a medieval vengeance upon those confined within its walls.
More important, however, is its rehabilitative role, to help foster social responsibility in those who have flaunted it.
One of the objectives of Her Majesty's Prison Service is 'providing safe and well-ordered establishments in which we treat prisoners humanely, decently and lawfully'.
To treat them humanely, though, necessitates acknowledging their humanity.
“People have to see themselves engaged with the society they are part of,” said Frances Crook, Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, the UK’s oldest penal reform charity.
“Being part of the decision-making process is part of being a responsible citizen. Giving the vote is one small step in being engaged with civic power.”
Retired soldier Alfred Kerr, 45, of Wythenshawe, stated: “As soon as you break the law, all your rights should be taken from you, and anyone who thinks otherwise should be locked up too.”
If it is true, as former Conservative MP Jonathan Aitken asserts, that ‘the vast majority of prisoners do not even want to vote’, then many will wonder why the incident has caused such a furore.
The right of a citizen, though, does not diminish in relevance or legitimacy the longer it is denied.
Student Daniel Locke, 22, of Rusholme, said: “Democracy is the right to vote for everybody, not just the people you agree with.”
Prisoners are allowed to vote in 14 European countries, including Ireland, Spain and Sweden, and there are 16 more where prisoners have limited voting rights, including Germany, France and Italy.
Our nation’s stance on the rights of prisoners has put us in rather ignominious company.
The only other members of the EU who still deny voting rights to sentenced prisoners are Bulgaria and Romania, the worst performing countries on the Human Development Index, which takes into account levels of poverty, education and health, as well as Hungary and Estonia, who fare little better.
It is telling that we are resolutely clinging to a law upheld by some of the continent’s least developed countries.
Mr Cameron, who has taken a defiant stance on the issue, stated: "It makes me physically ill to contemplate giving the vote to prisoners.
“They should lose some rights, including the right to vote."
It would make most feel more than a little queasy, that some of the country’s most dangerous and disturbed criminals could indelibly influence Britain’s political landscape.
However, with their potential newfound democratic heft prisoners could well feel physically ill at the thought of endorsing Mr Cameron with the votes he so eagerly denies them.
It may be the case that those amongst the country’s 88,000 condemned who gain the right to vote will use it against the ConDems.
How prisoners will vote, though, pales in significance to what having the vote will mean.
The issues of overcrowding, expense and violence, constants in a prisoner’s day, would instantly become more politically pertinent.
The ability to vote in local elections will necessitate a change in the relationship between convicts and local government, as well as focusing attention on regional successes in terms of employment and resettlement.
Many people with the capacity to inflict pain and suffering would still have the capacity to make reasoned and rational decisions at the ballot box.
Much in the same way, sensible and judicious individuals will impose suffering and inadequacy on others as we do by denying prisoners the vote, an electoral stepping stone to a functioning role in society.
Mancunian Matters would like to apologise to John Hirst for any inaccuracies that occured in the original reporting of this story, and thank him for his help with the piece.
Tuesday, June 05, 2012
Monday, June 04, 2012
Royal Jubilee Muppet Show special starring Lizzy and Phil
Jubilee Muppet Show special starring Lizzy and Phil
Statler and Waldorf in the Muppet Show
Statler and Waldorf in the Muppet Show