Counterblast: Why penal reform should not be a Conservative issue

Counterblast: Why penal reform should not be a Conservative issue

Ian Loader, Professor of Criminology at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of All Souls College, argues in 988 words, on the blog ConservativeHome.com, “Why penal reform should be a Conservative issue” http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2009/07/ian-loader-why-penal-reform-should-be-a-conservative-issue.html. Unfortunately for an academic he has failed to properly research his subject. According to Wikipedia “Prison reform is the attempt to improve conditions inside prisons, aiming at a more effective penal system…A precise definition refers to attempts to change the penal system, typically from one model of penology to another. Reverting to an earlier model is frequently also characterized as reform. Criminal justice models are based on the goals of the penal system” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_reform.

Ian Loader advertises the fact that he sat on the Howard League’s Commission on English Prisons Today, and that they have just published their report which advocates a change of direction. Another member of the Commission is Professor Andrew Rutherford, author of Prisons and the Process of Justice. In his book he writes: “Prison populations are determined, intentionally or otherwise, by policy choices. There are three general policy options: expansion, standstill and reduction”.

Beneath Ian Loader’s article, in the comments section, “Andrew” drew readers attention to the “Conservative policy document Prisons with a Purpose” http://www.conservatives.com/~/media/Files/Green%20Papers/Prisons_Policy_Paper.ashx?dl=true which I had read already. In the Foreword by David Cameron, he states “For too long, Labour have refused to build the prison places that are needed”. Clearly Tory prison policy intends to go down the road of expansionism. With their minds already made up not to address the prison crisis and their minds made up to make matters even worse than they are at the present, I cannot help but wonder why Ian Loader chose to go against the wind? Any fisherman would have told him that he would only get wet in the process.

It was only in March that the Centre for Social Studies published the findings from their Prison Reform Working Group, the report, “Locked Up Potential: A Strategy for Reforming Prisons and Rehabilitating Prisoners”, http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/client/downloads/CSJLockedUpPotentialFULLrEPORT.pdf in my view, is the Tory version of Labour’s dodgy dossier on WMD. The task force was chaired by disgraced former Tory MP Jonathan Aitken. According to the Tories, Aitken’s 7 months in custody made him uniquely qualified to chair the task force. (Prisoners, on the other hand, would say that amount of imprisonment only qualifies him to take a dump and a shave). Another member of the task force was the severely discredited former prison governor Stuart Mitson. Aitken’s report recommended that future prison design should follow the “unique design” of the Mitson Academy Model. Whilst the task force was sitting but before the report was published, Stuart Mitson Consultancy Ltd was set up. There is nothing unique about the design at all. It may be that GSL (formerly Group 4) (who Stuart Mitson worked for until the Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prison’s damning report ended his prison career) could prove to a court’s satisfaction that the design is based on the “Carling Unit” at H.M. Prison Rye Hill.

Whilst the Tories talk about rehabilitation and the need to prevent offenders from re-offending, their prison building programme is aimed at the private sector. The private sector requires a higher body count for higher profits. It is not in the private sector’s interests to prevent re-offending. Genuine prison reform uses the reductionism model. One look at the Tory spending plans in Aitken’s report shows that the Tory policy is motivated by ever increasing profits year on year. Neither the public nor prisoners will benefit from this deception. The only ones to benefit will be the building contractors, and any others who gain, like parasites, by feeding off prisoners suffering. Less prisons not more serves law and order. The larger the penal estate the bigger the failure by government to tackle crime. What the Tory party is offering in public protection is akin to Fagin helping himself to someone’s purse.

Lord Snooty of Bullingdon Oxford Restaurant Trasher

Lord Snooty of Bullingdon Oxford Restaurant Trasher

David Cameron: The age of austerity



Come in number 2 your time is up.



I don't know who the guy is immediately above, but it is not Dave the Rave.

I am presently analysing David Cameron's speech at the Tory Cheltenham Forum. Whilst I have also read the transcript, it is not possible to pick up from that the bags under his eyes, and the five times he pinches his nose in the same way that someone with a raging cocaine habit pinches their nose. I noticed the same thing with the video of David Cameron in India.



Photoshop of Lord Snooty Cameron by RonKnee.

Dumb dumb dumb dumb David Cameron in a remake of Jaws

Dumb dumb dumb dumb David Cameron in a remake of Jaws

Following the reported sighting of a Great White Shark in South Africa, David Cameron is seen taking his pet surfboard for a walk along a beach in South Africa.

No honour amongst thieves

I was rather amused to read in last night's Telegraph on line that "David Cameron has ordered a wealthy Tory peer and donor to comply with a three-year old pledge to give up his tax exile status after being appointed to the House of Lords". It reminds me of prison officers trying to enforce compliance by stating "I'm giving you a direct order". According to the Prison Rules, there is no such thing as a direct order. However, it is a prison disciplinary offence to refuse to obey a lawful order. Even if the correct terminology is used, it is often greeted by "Fuck Off". How does David Cameron intend forcing plain Mr Irvine Alan Stewart Laidlaw to comply, by twisting his arm? See how easily I stripped him of his title?

Legally, plain Mr Irvine Alan Stewart Laidlaw can argue that I do not have the authority to strip him of his title. What title? As I understand it, leaving aside his giving cash for the honour to the Tory Party, the terms and conditions were that he gave up his tax exile status and took up residence in the UK if he was ennobled. Given that he has failed to honour the contract, it becomes null and void, therefore he becomes plain old mister again.

As I understand it, plain Mr Irvine Alan Stewart Laidlaw wrote to the toothless Parliamentary honours watchdog with his "excuses" for not becoming UK registered for tax purposes. In any event, it is not in his financial interests to do this. I don't think it is in any of our financial interests to pay tax. However, it is a burden most people have to bear. The ineffectual Lords Appointment Committee only has the power to name and shame this chappie in its annual report. How many times have Home Secretaries been named and shamed in the Chief Inspector of Prisons annual report? This wee chappie is estimated to be worth £730M. Now, if I had that kind of money I wouldn't give a fuck how often I was named and shamed. Being in his early sixties, it is unlikely that he would be able to spend it all before he kicked the bucket and he can't take it with him. It would appear that he is trying to broker a deal with HM Revenue and Customs, a sort of you go easy on me and I'll come back home. You tightfisted Scottish bastard!

In the past there have been a few examples of people being stripped of their titles. In my view, it should be the case that no amount of money can buy such honours. However, corruption in our political parties is rife. A simple Act of Parliament is all that is needed to strip Lord Tax Dodger of his title. Again, if I had all his money I wouldn't give a damn. It might hurt him more if he was stripped of his title and it was instead given to that bloke who owns Harrods. If Parliament was doing its job properly in the first place there would not be all these loopholes in the tax laws allowing these bastards to crawl through.

As I understand it, this wee chappie has given money to charity (with the obvious tax benefits) and is sponsoring the English National Opera’s new production of Bizet’s Carmen. It is doubtful that like José our wee chappie will turn himself in to face justice. If he will not honour those undertakings to the Lord's Appointment Commission, why should we honour him?