Free Willy

Free Willy

My friend Humph took me to collect Willy from the Animal Rescue Centre @ approx 11am.

He's on 48 hours home trial.

When 15 year old Maniek called Willy slipped past me and ran off in the direction of the small park out back. He was swiftly recaptured.

Later anotheof my Polish "grand children" sniggeringly called out "Willy" and the dog responded. So he's now called Willy.

A couple of problems, Willy sicked up his breakfast. And he's had flatulence all day. Phew!

Rocky II

Rocky II

Add caption

Male x Labrador, Approx 7-8 years old. William has been returned to us as he can be protective over certain things i.e chairs, william will need to have boundries in his new home and we feel a more experienced owner would be ideal. He is a lovely boy in the kennels and causes no problems, he loves his walks on our field and is a favourite of our dog walkers. William is good with other dogs. A home with no children is preferred.

Comment: I found him on the website of the rescue centre where I got Rocky.  Phoned up today and went to see him and take him for a walk. Like Rocky he is keen on scents and drags on the lead. Rocky was crossed with a greyhound. William probably a terrier. He's a bit smaller and not as strong as Rocky was in the shoulders for dragging me where he wanted to go.

Due to pick him up on Thursday morning.

My friend said "You're not keeping the name William are you? Everyone will still call him Rocky II". My Polish friends already refer to him as that. I hope Wiliam does not mind the name change...

Taxi for Rocky to doggy heaven

Taxi for Rocky to doggy heaven.

This morning the house feels empty and quiet.

Yesterday morning I came down wondering if I would find Rocky lying dead on the fireside carpet. He had not jumped up on to the bed beside me. Something was wrong. He lay there not giving me any attention. I thought I had better get him down to the PDSA. I went to look for the phone number. When I came back Rocky was stood by the front door. I thought he was going out to be sick. He took a few wobbly steps and then collapsed. My heart sank.

I phoned friend to take us down to the PDSA but he said he was in the middle of a field in Lincolnshire tending the horses and would not be back until lunchtime. He suggsted getting Rocky a blanket. I wrapped a duvet around him.

I phoned the PDSA and said I needed an ambulance. I was told they no longer provided this service. It was suggested I get a taxi. I thought 'where am I going to get the money for a taxi from?'. I did hope that my pension had been paid in early for Christmas. I was told to bring a letter from the Council Tax or Housing Benefit with me. I got irrate with them worrying about a piece of paper when Rocky was in such a state. I did not know where I would find a recent letter after the workmen had moved everything around to get the double glazing installed in my study/bedroom.

I kept popping out to check on Rocky.

A neighbour called with a Christmas card for Rocky and me. He offered to pay for a taxi. I said I would check if my money had come first.

Lunchtime came and I phoned my friend again only to be told he was now at work and that his partner had got the car.

I left Rocky to go to the cash point, and luckily my pension money was available.

Then I had a brain wave where I might find the necessary letter for the PDSA, I found it and got a 3.15pm emergency appointment. I ordered a taxi for 2.45-3pm.

I was not fit enough to pick up Rocky so the Taxi driver suggested we each pick up two corners of the duvet and stretchered Rocky into the taxi.

At the PDSA the surgeon said that Rocky's gums showed that he was anemic and that she suspected internal bleeding and feared it would be cancer. She said they would need to do blood tests and X-Rays. If I did not hear anything by 4.30 to phone back.

Approximately 4.30pm I received the phone call I was dreading. The surgeon said Rocky had lost a lot of blood, and she had difficulty finding the veins. He had a ruptured spleen. She could operate but Rocky may not survive the anasthetc. I said Rocky deserved the chance

During the operation it was discovered that the cancer had spread to Rocky's liver and that removing the spleen would make no difference.

I said to put him to sleep.

Rocky is now in doggy heaven.

Rocky RIP

Rocky RIP

Xmas cartoon

Xmas cartoon

Eight Scots seceding, seven spads-a-spinning, six MPs letting...
Five omnishambles!
Four royal letters, three safe seats, two posh boys... and patronage from the party!

Prison rape: Is the US doing enough to protect inmates?

New measures are being implemented in the US to tackle rape and sexual assault in prison. But in Alabama, one women's prison has gained a notorious reputation for being unsafe.

Prisoner held 9 years after release date!

Prisoner held 9 years after release date!

Drugs, alcohol and violence all rife at Lincoln Prison

Bullying and violence are rife at a Victorian prison which is so overcrowded that prisoners are too scared to leave their wings and one had been held for nine years after his release date.

Europe says no to UK on keeping status quo

CASES No. 30
1157th meeting – 6 December 2012
Cases against the United Kingdom

Europe says no to UK on keeping status quo HIRST No. 2 GROUP
Application	Case	Judgment of	Final on
74025/01	HIRST No. 2	06/10/2005	Grand Chamber
60041/08+	GREENS AND M.T.	23/11/2010	11/04/2011

CM/ResDH(2009)160, DH-DD(2011)139, DH-DD(2011)679E, DH-DD(2012)1106E
Decisions
The Deputies
1. recalled that in the judgment Hirst No. 2 and the Greens and M.T. pilot judgment the European Court found violations of Article 3 of Protocol 1 due to the blanket ban on voting imposed automatically on the applicants due to their status as convicted offenders detained in prison;
2. recalled further that the United Kingdom authorities had until 23 November 2012 to introduce legislative proposals to amend the electoral law imposing a blanket restriction on voting rights of convicted prisoners in prison;
3. noted with great interest that the United Kingdom authorities introduced legislative proposals to Parliament on 22 November 2012 to amend the electoral law imposing a blanket restriction on voting rights of convicted prisoners in prison, which include a range of options for a Parliamentary Committee to consider;
4. welcomed and strongly supported the announcement made by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice when presenting the legislative proposals to Parliament that “the Government is under an international legal obligation to implement the [European] Court’s judgment” and “the accepted practice is that the United Kingdom observes its international obligations”;
5. considered that the final version of the legislation that will be proposed to Parliament should be in conformity with the fundamental principles recalled in this announcement;
6. in this respect endorsed the view expressed in the Explanatory Report to the draft bill presenting the legislative proposals, that the third option aimed at retaining the blanket restriction criticised by the European Court cannot be considered compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights;
7. recalled that §115 of the pilot judgment states that the legislative proposals should be introduced “with a view to the enactment of an electoral law to achieve compliance with the Court's judgment in Hirst No. 2 according to any time-scale determined by the Committee of Ministers” and invited the authorities to keep the Committee regularly informed of progress made and on the proposed time-scale;
8. decided to resume consideration of the case at the latest at its 1179th meeting (September 2013) (DH) in the light of the above.

UK Action Plan to Committee of Ministers on prisoners votes

UK Action Plan to Committee of Ministers on prisoners votes

2012dd1106DH

Ashfield teenage prisoners to begin legal battle

Seven young offenders who claim they were punished unlawfully at a privately-run Bristol prison will begin a legal battle later.

Who guards the guardian of the Judiciary?

Who guards the guardian of the Judiciary?

Andrew Neil on Sunday Politics questioning Chris Grayling on votes for prisoners

AN: All right. Let’s come on to prisoners voting. David Cameron said that prisoners are not getting the vote under this government, but you are going to place options before parliament, some of which would give prisoners the vote.  Which way will you vote?

34:16

A: Well we haven’t got anything to vote on yet, but let’s be clear about what the legal position is and my position is particularly different in this because I am Lord Chancellor, I’ve sworn an oath to uphold the law. The requirement upon government and government ministers is very clear. That it is our duty to implement rulings of the European Court. But the legal position for parliament is different. That – and this is advice that’s come from the Attorney General,  there was also advice under the House of Lords 12 years ago from Lord Justice Hoffman, that parliament has the right to overrule the European Court of Human Rights if it believe it wants to do so. It has to accept there may be a political consequence for doing that, but it has the right to do so. So what we’ve done is we’ve said to parliament, right, this is the legal position. We’re under an obligation to do that, you’re not. I’m going to give you three options two of which involve giving some prisoners the vote, the third of which will give you the right to exercise your sovereignty and say no to the European Court. It’s up to you to decide. And there’s going to be a process of consultation over the next few months before it reaches the point of a vote.

AN: I understand that, but are you saying that as Lord Chancellor you cannot vote for the option which is status quo no votes for prisoners?

35:29

A: Well when we come to the point of a vote I will take appropriate legal advice. My position’s very different to other Members of Parliament on this because of my role as Guardian of the Judiciary.

AN:  Could the prime minister vote no?

35:39

A: I’m the only person who’s subject to the oath to uphold the law. The prime minister is subject to the ministerial code and he is of course the arbiter of the ministerial code. He will have to decide at the time what he wants ministers to do. My position is different, but it’s a matter for parliament as a whole.

AN: I understand that too but you – what  you I think are saying is that you may be asking parliament to vote for something, ie no votes for prisoners which you cannot vote for yourself or your Cabinet colleagues cannot vote for. Is that true? Is that a possibility?

36:08

A: There is no question – I mean the prime minister’s view on this is clear. I’m on the record on my view on this.

AN: I’m asking you  how you would vote.

36:13

A: But also I have legal responsibility and you can’t be Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary and not uphold the law. Whether you like the law or not. You can try and change the law. What I will do at the time is I’ll take appropriate legal advice about what I can and can’t do, but fundamentally this is a choice for parliament and what I’ve done is say to parliament it would be very easy simply to accept the ruling but actually the legal base is different. The legal base says, you as members of parliament,  you as parliament collectively have the right to decide yes or no to accept this ruling, I’m offering you the choice.

AN: Thank you for clarifying that.

Tony Blair stated in the HoC that prisoners would not get the vote under a Labour government. It's Ground-hog Day! David Cameron said that prisoners are not getting the vote under this government. Can he justify this statement? It appears to clash with the views expressed by two members of the Cabinet; the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling and Attorney General Dominic Grieve. If Cameron's reasoning is based upon his other statement that the thought of giving prisoners the vote makes him physically ill, it is contended that this reasoning is not legally sound.

Is the draft Bill presented to Parliament by Chris Grayling legally valid? In particular, the option to maintain the blanket ban, and excluding the option for full franchise?

Which way will Grayling vote? It depends if he has a conscience. He dodged answering Andrew Neil's question, before feeding him with a load of waffle. Laughably Neil then thanked Grayling for clarifying the issue. Clear as mud!

Andrew Neil: “Which way will you vote?”.

Chris Grayling: “Well we haven’t got anything to vote on yet, but let’s be clear about what the legal position is and my position is particularly different in this because I am Lord Chancellor, I’ve sworn an oath to uphold the law. The requirement upon government and government ministers is very clear. That it is our duty to implement rulings of the European Court. But the legal position for parliament is different. That – and this is advice that’s come from the Attorney General,  there was also advice under the House of Lords 12 years ago from Lord Justice Hoffman, that parliament has the right to overrule the European Court of Human Rights if it believe it wants to do so. It has to accept there may be a political consequence for doing that, but it has the right to do so. So what we’ve done is we’ve said to parliament, right, this is the legal position. We’re under an obligation to do that, you’re not. I’m going to give you three options two of which involve giving some prisoners the vote, the third of which will give you the right to exercise your sovereignty and say no to the European Court. It’s up to you to decide. And there’s going to be a process of consultation over the next few months before it reaches the point of a vote”.

The prisoners votes case is over 7 years ago. Why hasn't there been anything to vote on yet? Hasn't Grayling heard of the legal principle 'justice delayed is justice denied'? He appears to be a man without principle.

Call me Dave has stated 'were all in this together'. Grayling is now claiming he's different. I don't accept his position is any different. Aren't the Tories the 'law and order' party? Are they now to be known as the lawless and disorder party? The requirement upon the government and ministers he is referring to relates to the Ministerial Code. However, the Prime Minister's Rules are not a creature of statute and have no legal status. They might as well be called the Bullingdon Club Rules! The Ministerial Code should be laid down in an Act of Parliament, because as they stand it is doubtful that a court would enforce the Code or provide a remedy for its breach, in other words, adopting a 'hands-off' policy on the issue. Nor is it accepted that it is different for Parliament. Hirst v UK (No2) is binding on all three arms of the State; Executive, Parliament and Judiciary.

Grayling has misunderstood advice given by Dominic Grieve, and misunderstood what Lord Hoffman stated. Parliament has no legal right to overrule the ECtHR, its decisions are final. There is no so-called 'democratic override'. The Greek Colonels discovered this in the 1960s, and more recently the President of Belarus. Dictatorships, authoritarian or totalitarian States do not adhere to human rights, democracy and rule of law. Grayling has also misled Parliament with his non-lawyer “legal advice” claiming parliamentary sovereignty of being above the law with the right to break the law. The consultations are yet another delaying tactic.

Given that Cameron has had appropriate legal advice and ignored it like Blair did on the Iraq War, will Grayling also ignore the appropriate legal advice when he votes on prisoners votes?

Grayling: “I have legal responsibility and you can’t be Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary and not uphold the law”.

Charles Falconer, Jack Straw and Kenneth Clarke managed to do this, not uphold the law.

Given that Grayling accepts that it would be easy simply to accept the ECtHR ruling, why has the UK resisted for over 7 years? It is nonsense to claim that the legal base for Parliament is different, it's the same for all 47 Member States of the Council of Europe. Toe the line. Grayling is saying he's given Parliament the choice of sticking up two fingers to the ECtHR. It's pure spin. Grayling's choice is the modern equivalent of Hobson's choice. He's given less margin of appreciation than the ECtHR.