From The Times
June 11, 2007
Mr Blair extradited? Not as crazy as it sounds
William Rees-Moggon
There has been little discussion in the press of the recent House of Lords judgment in the Dabas case. A friend has sent me the Opinions of the Lords of Appeal. I am sure that at least one other person in London will have read them: Cherie Booth, QC, who is the in-house lawyer of the Blair family, and a good one. If yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph is correct: “Cherie is worried about a prosecution – she still thinks it is a real possibility.”
If there is a prosecution of Tony Blair after he leaves office, it may arise either out of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, or out of torture allegations, probably at Guantanamo Bay, or connected to United Kingdom support for “extraordinary rendition”. In all probability, the charges would be made in some other European jurisdiction, under the laws of some other member of the European Union. That is why the Dabas case, though little noticed, is crucially important.
In this case, the Lords of Appeal defined the position in British law of the European “system of surrender between judicial authorities”. This system of surrender was “conceived and adopted” as a European Council Framework Decision on June 13, 2002, and was adopted into British law in the Extradition Act 2003. The 2003 Act also abolished the requirement that there should be a prima facie case made for extradition to the United States, and some other countries.
The basic facts of the Dabas case were outlined by Lord Hope of Craighead: “On March 17, 2005, a European arrest warrant was issued by the High Court of Justice, Madrid, for the extradition of the appellant, Moutaz Almallah Dabas, to Spain. The decision on which the warrant was based was an order by Judge Juan del Olmo Gálvez that the appellant should be subject to unconditional temporary imprisonment to await his trial for the offence of collaboration with an Islamist terrorist organisation in connection with explosions that took place in four trains in Madrid, with much loss of life, on March 11, 2004.”
There is no suggestion that the surrender of Mr Dabas would involve a gross miscarriage of justice. The allegation is one of conspiracy to assist terrorism, with major loss of life. All five law lords joined in dismissing Mr Dabas’s appeal. They closed all the loopholes.
In the case of the United States, one key problem has been the loss of the requirement that the country seeking extradition should show a prima facie case against the accused.
That has resulted in cases of apparent injustice against the “NatWest Three” and similar groups or individuals. In the case of Europe, there will be concerns about the acceptance that any European jurisdiction can demand the surrender of an accused party and that the requirement of “double criminality” should be removed in many types of case. Ms Booth may have been particularly disturbed by the partially dissenting minority opinion of Lord Scott of Foscote, which deals with the issue of double criminality.
One protection for the accused has been this requirement of “double criminality”; that principle requires that “the alleged conduct of the person whose extradition was sought was not only a criminal offence in the requesting member state but would also have been a criminal offence if done in the requested member state”. Even today, you cannot be “surrendered” to Ruritania unless your offence is against British as well as Ruritanian law. Unfortunately, there are exceptions to this wholesome rule, and Lord Scott has pointed them out.
If an offence can be punished under the law of the requesting state by more than three years’ imprisonment, then the double criminality safeguard ceases to apply to a variety of loosely expressed crimes: “Terrorism, corruption, racism and xenophobia, swindling, etc.” If a Ruritanian judge, anxious to make a name for himself, issues a European arrest warrant for a British ex-minister, and brings the warrant under the appropriate Ruritanian laws, the British courts will be bound to honour that warrant.
In the words of Lord Scott, “whether the conduct in question fell within a specified category was for the law of the requesting state to define”. Ruritanian law trumps British. Lord Scott went on to observe that “there has been no harmonisation of the criminal laws of the European Union member states, and, I believe, no widespread enthusiasm for any such harmonisation. So the possibility of surrender for prosecution in relation to conduct that would not be criminal in the requested state is a very live one”.
The problem is that the 2003 Act gives effect to the European principle that there should be “mutual recognition” by each member state of the validity of the judicial orders and decisions of other member states. As with the United States, where Harvard-trained lawyers can tremble before a Texas jury, so in Europe there can be very different standards in different jurisdictions. These are reflected in different laws, procedures and in the politicisation of judges, which is much higher in Italy, for instance, than it is here. The idea that all European courts are equal in character may be convenient, but it is a legal fiction.
Many people will think that the prosecution of Tony Blair is a remote risk; I do not, and nor, apparently, does Cherie Booth, who knows the law better than most people. One can remember the Pinochet extradition case, which was started by a Spanish judge, though the torture had taken place in Chile. The Council of Europe human rights organisation has found that Britain gave logistical support to CIA extraordinary rendition flights, and that Diego Garcia was used to process such prisoners. Apart from any other laws, the Convention on Torture, which Britain has signed, gives wide powers for judicial action.
I have sympathy with the old doctrine of sovereign immunity. I do not think the Labour Government should have accepted the European Framework or passed the Extradition Act in 2003. But it did, and that presents serious problems. We have made British extradition law respond to every judge in Europe and to the varying laws of every European country. That was a crazy thing to do.
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.
Site Meter
Monday, June 11, 2007
Gordon Brown plays Manuel in Fawlty Towers.
The BAE scandal has become a farce. I was reminded of Manuel in Fawlty Towers, and Sgt Schultz from the TV series Hogan’s Heroes, both of whom used the catch phrase "I know nothing!", when reading Gordon Brown's response in this article: Gordon Brown was asked yesterday at a meeting with Labour supporters in Oxford if he was aware of alleged £100 million annual payments to Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia's former ambassador to Washington.
Mr Brown said: " I had no knowledge of those things".
Photomanip: Ron.
More troops desert the war in Iraq than are now fighting it
I find it staggering that as many as 11,000 troops have found that they do not have the stomach for fighting the war in Iraq and have deserted. Just as well that we no longer shoot deserters as this would prove to be a far higher total than our total of casualties to date. Perhaps, the rank and file are telling the government something and that we should not be there in the first place?
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Drink, arse, feck...
My Latvian friends and I broke out the vodka and whisky, to drink and we had chicken to eat and a merry time was had by all. Rocky and I have just finished off the last of a tub of ice cream. We have had heat wave weather in Hull for the past few days. My friends want to visit the local jail. I suppose it is like a busman's holiday for them. Personally, I think that they are mad for wanting to visit a prison. Twenty-five years of the place was enough for me...
How much hypocrisy can Britain get away with on this sordid deal?
From The Sunday Times
June 10, 2007
How much hypocrisy can Britain get away with on this sordid deal?
The government has defied anticorruption treaties and impeded the conduct of justice
Simon Jenkins
The Saudi bribes scandal may yet prove a more devastating epilogue to the Blair era than cash for honours. The original deal, reached in 1985 by Margaret Thatcher, doubled the price of a Tornado jet to cover huge commissions to members of the Saudi royal family and their retainers.
It has led the British government to defy international anticorruption treaties and impede the conduct of justice by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). Last week it emerged that it had also impeded corruption investigators from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
All this was to appease an outlandishly corrupt, authoritarian and brutal dictatorship, embodying everything that Tony Blair claims to detest in his “war of values” and against which his soldiers are dying in Iraq. By his lights Riyadh should be bombed, not sold bombers.
The £43 billion contract for 120 planes and assorted extras was the biggest arms deal in history. Its purpose was obscure, other than to shift vast sums of oil wealth from relieving the condition of the Saudi poor into the pockets of its very rich. The array of costly aerial and naval weaponry mostly depends on foreigners to operate. Unsupported by a plausible land army, it would be of little use against any likely aggressor. It is a massive display of conspicuous consumption.
The contract was reached with the help of Prince Bandar, son of the Saudi defence minister, and the assistance of Wafic Said, a Syrian wheeler-dealer, and went ahead only after Bandar, Saudi ambassador to Washington, realised that the Israeli lobby would not entertain America supplying so big an Arab defence contract. Less crucial, according to a 2005 book by Mark Hollingsworth and Paul Halloran, was an estimated £12m paid to Mark Thatcher on the side.
After years of denial, all sides now acknowledge that commissions were (and still are) being paid and only their status is disputed. A special Bank of England account is used by BAE, the aerospace company, on a double-key basis with the defence ministry, usually through an offshore firm called Red Diamond.
In other words, the government is “complicit”. While SFO documents are said to reveal a morass of payments to Swiss accounts for private jets, villas, gaming clubs and prostitutes, the lion’s share goes to Bandar, roughly £100m a year. This became illegal after Britain’s 2001 counter-terrorism act.
Small “facilities payments” to strictly local agents are allowed under trade department rules, up to 1% of a contract; 5% is regarded as the corruption threshold. Al-Yamamah hovers around 30%. In 1992 the weak-kneed National Audit Office was told by the government to stop asking questions about al-Yamamah bribes and did so. When in 2004 the more independent SFO returned to the stinking trough it was pressured by Blair and BAE three times to desist. It appealed to Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, and from January to December last year he supported it in what became its biggest inquiry, costing £2m. In December, when the SFO was closing in on the secret accounts of Bandar and others in Switzerland, the Saudis and BAE went ballistic, despite professing their total innocence.
MI5 and MI6 were asked by Blair to declare the investigation damaging to British security. This they declined to do, leaking only that it might be if the Saudis refused security cooperation. There has been no evidence of such Saudi blackmail, which would be much against Riyadh’s interest. Yet such clear conditionality was omitted from Goldsmith’s statement on security to the House of Lords on December 14, as it has been from all subsequent statements by Blair. The blackmail is stated as a fact.
By December 14 the pressure on Robert Wardle, head of the SFO, was so intense that, although quoted as “wanting to continue”, he called a halt, forced implausibly to say it was his own decision.
Goldsmith’s stated reason was that the evidence of bribery was now so weak that the case would soon collapse. The truth was that the evidence was so strong. Had it been weak, any shrewd politician would have let it collapse rather than incur the odium of interfering with the judicial process. As Blair and his home secretaries always say when introducing more draconian antiterrorism laws, “The innocent have nothing to fear.” Why did he not apply that principle to Bandar and BAE? The answer is obvious.
The decision to halt the SFO inquiry in December devastated Britain’s reputation as a champion of global anticorruption. Article 5 of the OECD convention, ratified by Britain in 1998, states categorically that prosecuting corruption “shall not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest, the potential effect upon relations with another state or the identity of [those] involved”. Whitehall rules also require firms using intermediaries to name them and the commissions paid.
While a provision of the al-Yamamah contract was that its terms be kept secret, there is nothing in the OECD convention excusing past contracts, let alone the £20 billion extension for 72 more planes now pending.
Blair not only signed the OECD convention but also trumpeted Britain’s desire to fight corruption wherever it occurred. Yet he personally intervened in 2001 to save the notorious £28m Tanzanian military radar contract after being told in cabinet by his aid minister and the chancellor that it was a racket, wildly beyond that country’s needs. It turned out that £6m of the contract was a British bribe paid direct into the Swiss bank account of a certain Sailesh Vithlani, who has confirmed it. Despite their opposition, Clare Short and Hilary Benn, the aid ministers, did not resign and Benn was rewarded by Blair with the post of “cabinet anticorruption co-ordinator”. An SFO inquiry into the deal is said to be merely ongoing. In view of all this, Britain’s presence in Jordan last year at a United Nations convention against corruption was like Robert Mugabe turning up at a good governance seminar.
The macho line taken by defence secretaries and others sworn to the al-Yamamah oath of secrecy has been to plead national security and then soup it up with claims that thousands of jobs depend on it and that if Britain did not bribe, others would. That Britain’s security should depend on bribing the Bandars of this world, rather than calling their bluff, is humiliating. As for intelligence, Britain’s needs are concentrated notably in Iran and Pakistan, while Riyadh’s needs are internal. Britain, with a large expatriate Saudi population, has as much intelligence to offer as to lose.
The idea that the Saudis would conceal information on a London bomb because London had stopped bribing Bandar is either ludicrous or confirmation that Saudi Arabia should be no friend of Britain.
As for job losses, they have never been a legitimate reason either for breaching the OECD convention or for condoning crime. Britain’s cocaine business is worth thousands of jobs, but is not permitted on that basis. A 2001 York University study of our subsidised defence industries pointed out that in total they comprise just 2.6% of British exports and 0.4% of employment, while consuming large numbers of skilled workers desperately needed elsewhere. Even so, it is doubtful if the Saudis would switch the new £20 billion contract to France. They value their favoured-state relation with Britain, especially with America cooling towards Riyadh.
The best bet for both sides now would be to come clean, stop the corruption and slash the price of the planes. BAE, with large commercial interests in America, must be at risk from the ferocious Justice Department, or from rivals dragging it before Congress or private litigation. Under its 1977 anticorruption law, the federal government has embarked on 50 such prosecutions. Under the OECD convention, France has managed eight. Britain has prosecuted nobody. The reason is that the attorney-general and the SFO are agents of a political executive, not the judiciary.
If the legal position of the British government as complicit in the bribery is untenable, its moral position is laughable. It has inflated the price of an export to win a contract by corruption. It has been forced to use the dictator’s defence, that resulting embarrassment should be shrouded by “national security”. And it must tell African and Asian regimes that its much-trumpeted stance against corruption is meant to apply only to the poor and the weak. Such hypocrisy in Britain’s name is outrageous.
Comment: All this raises the serious question, if the word bribe is not deemed to be acceptable to describe a bribe, what should be invented to cover this conduct?
If we operate along the lines of he who pays the piper calls the tune, I fail to see how BAE can establish an independent inquiry. Perhaps, it should be chaired by a law officer? For example, Lord Goldsmith...
June 10, 2007
How much hypocrisy can Britain get away with on this sordid deal?
The government has defied anticorruption treaties and impeded the conduct of justice
Simon Jenkins
The Saudi bribes scandal may yet prove a more devastating epilogue to the Blair era than cash for honours. The original deal, reached in 1985 by Margaret Thatcher, doubled the price of a Tornado jet to cover huge commissions to members of the Saudi royal family and their retainers.
It has led the British government to defy international anticorruption treaties and impede the conduct of justice by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). Last week it emerged that it had also impeded corruption investigators from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
All this was to appease an outlandishly corrupt, authoritarian and brutal dictatorship, embodying everything that Tony Blair claims to detest in his “war of values” and against which his soldiers are dying in Iraq. By his lights Riyadh should be bombed, not sold bombers.
The £43 billion contract for 120 planes and assorted extras was the biggest arms deal in history. Its purpose was obscure, other than to shift vast sums of oil wealth from relieving the condition of the Saudi poor into the pockets of its very rich. The array of costly aerial and naval weaponry mostly depends on foreigners to operate. Unsupported by a plausible land army, it would be of little use against any likely aggressor. It is a massive display of conspicuous consumption.
The contract was reached with the help of Prince Bandar, son of the Saudi defence minister, and the assistance of Wafic Said, a Syrian wheeler-dealer, and went ahead only after Bandar, Saudi ambassador to Washington, realised that the Israeli lobby would not entertain America supplying so big an Arab defence contract. Less crucial, according to a 2005 book by Mark Hollingsworth and Paul Halloran, was an estimated £12m paid to Mark Thatcher on the side.
After years of denial, all sides now acknowledge that commissions were (and still are) being paid and only their status is disputed. A special Bank of England account is used by BAE, the aerospace company, on a double-key basis with the defence ministry, usually through an offshore firm called Red Diamond.
In other words, the government is “complicit”. While SFO documents are said to reveal a morass of payments to Swiss accounts for private jets, villas, gaming clubs and prostitutes, the lion’s share goes to Bandar, roughly £100m a year. This became illegal after Britain’s 2001 counter-terrorism act.
Small “facilities payments” to strictly local agents are allowed under trade department rules, up to 1% of a contract; 5% is regarded as the corruption threshold. Al-Yamamah hovers around 30%. In 1992 the weak-kneed National Audit Office was told by the government to stop asking questions about al-Yamamah bribes and did so. When in 2004 the more independent SFO returned to the stinking trough it was pressured by Blair and BAE three times to desist. It appealed to Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, and from January to December last year he supported it in what became its biggest inquiry, costing £2m. In December, when the SFO was closing in on the secret accounts of Bandar and others in Switzerland, the Saudis and BAE went ballistic, despite professing their total innocence.
MI5 and MI6 were asked by Blair to declare the investigation damaging to British security. This they declined to do, leaking only that it might be if the Saudis refused security cooperation. There has been no evidence of such Saudi blackmail, which would be much against Riyadh’s interest. Yet such clear conditionality was omitted from Goldsmith’s statement on security to the House of Lords on December 14, as it has been from all subsequent statements by Blair. The blackmail is stated as a fact.
By December 14 the pressure on Robert Wardle, head of the SFO, was so intense that, although quoted as “wanting to continue”, he called a halt, forced implausibly to say it was his own decision.
Goldsmith’s stated reason was that the evidence of bribery was now so weak that the case would soon collapse. The truth was that the evidence was so strong. Had it been weak, any shrewd politician would have let it collapse rather than incur the odium of interfering with the judicial process. As Blair and his home secretaries always say when introducing more draconian antiterrorism laws, “The innocent have nothing to fear.” Why did he not apply that principle to Bandar and BAE? The answer is obvious.
The decision to halt the SFO inquiry in December devastated Britain’s reputation as a champion of global anticorruption. Article 5 of the OECD convention, ratified by Britain in 1998, states categorically that prosecuting corruption “shall not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest, the potential effect upon relations with another state or the identity of [those] involved”. Whitehall rules also require firms using intermediaries to name them and the commissions paid.
While a provision of the al-Yamamah contract was that its terms be kept secret, there is nothing in the OECD convention excusing past contracts, let alone the £20 billion extension for 72 more planes now pending.
Blair not only signed the OECD convention but also trumpeted Britain’s desire to fight corruption wherever it occurred. Yet he personally intervened in 2001 to save the notorious £28m Tanzanian military radar contract after being told in cabinet by his aid minister and the chancellor that it was a racket, wildly beyond that country’s needs. It turned out that £6m of the contract was a British bribe paid direct into the Swiss bank account of a certain Sailesh Vithlani, who has confirmed it. Despite their opposition, Clare Short and Hilary Benn, the aid ministers, did not resign and Benn was rewarded by Blair with the post of “cabinet anticorruption co-ordinator”. An SFO inquiry into the deal is said to be merely ongoing. In view of all this, Britain’s presence in Jordan last year at a United Nations convention against corruption was like Robert Mugabe turning up at a good governance seminar.
The macho line taken by defence secretaries and others sworn to the al-Yamamah oath of secrecy has been to plead national security and then soup it up with claims that thousands of jobs depend on it and that if Britain did not bribe, others would. That Britain’s security should depend on bribing the Bandars of this world, rather than calling their bluff, is humiliating. As for intelligence, Britain’s needs are concentrated notably in Iran and Pakistan, while Riyadh’s needs are internal. Britain, with a large expatriate Saudi population, has as much intelligence to offer as to lose.
The idea that the Saudis would conceal information on a London bomb because London had stopped bribing Bandar is either ludicrous or confirmation that Saudi Arabia should be no friend of Britain.
As for job losses, they have never been a legitimate reason either for breaching the OECD convention or for condoning crime. Britain’s cocaine business is worth thousands of jobs, but is not permitted on that basis. A 2001 York University study of our subsidised defence industries pointed out that in total they comprise just 2.6% of British exports and 0.4% of employment, while consuming large numbers of skilled workers desperately needed elsewhere. Even so, it is doubtful if the Saudis would switch the new £20 billion contract to France. They value their favoured-state relation with Britain, especially with America cooling towards Riyadh.
The best bet for both sides now would be to come clean, stop the corruption and slash the price of the planes. BAE, with large commercial interests in America, must be at risk from the ferocious Justice Department, or from rivals dragging it before Congress or private litigation. Under its 1977 anticorruption law, the federal government has embarked on 50 such prosecutions. Under the OECD convention, France has managed eight. Britain has prosecuted nobody. The reason is that the attorney-general and the SFO are agents of a political executive, not the judiciary.
If the legal position of the British government as complicit in the bribery is untenable, its moral position is laughable. It has inflated the price of an export to win a contract by corruption. It has been forced to use the dictator’s defence, that resulting embarrassment should be shrouded by “national security”. And it must tell African and Asian regimes that its much-trumpeted stance against corruption is meant to apply only to the poor and the weak. Such hypocrisy in Britain’s name is outrageous.
Comment: All this raises the serious question, if the word bribe is not deemed to be acceptable to describe a bribe, what should be invented to cover this conduct?
If we operate along the lines of he who pays the piper calls the tune, I fail to see how BAE can establish an independent inquiry. Perhaps, it should be chaired by a law officer? For example, Lord Goldsmith...
6 adults shot dead and 1 child wounded...
If this is a safe neighbourhood, I would hate to live in a war zone...
The Slave Labour Party
Not old Labour, not New Labour, not even just Labour (thanks to Bob Piper), but slave Labour. I am buggered how Lakshmi Mittal can be described as the UK's richest man, when he was born in India and only resides here, keeping his Indian nationality. In any event, it is clearer how he made his vast fortune, that is, by employing slave labour. He has donated £5M to the Labour Party. Wouldn't William Wiberforce be proud?
Tory leader and his diet of coke - it's the real thing...
Cocaine may get up Dave the Rave Cameron's nose, but does he appreciate how far it has to travel first to get there?
Hazel Blears in deputy leadership bid for BNP
It is now clear why the extreme right-winger*, Iain Dale, favours Hazel Blears the Labour MP for Salford, to become the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. Not that long ago Margaret Hodge played the race card, and was accused of being more in tune with the BNP than with Labour. Now Hazel Blears has pulled the race card out from her sleeve and is playing it to the gallery.
Hat-Tip to Theo Spark for the True Blue image of Hazel Blears.
UPDATE: * Iain Dale has asked me to point out that he objects to the term "extreme right winger". Your objection is noted. And, of course, Paul Joseph Gobells was just a publisher nothing whatsoever to do with the Nazis and propaganda. Not that this has anything to do with Iain Dale, just thought that I would mention it...
Sheep shagging Tory MP discovers cause of crime
David Davies, Conservative MP for the sheep shagging constituency of Monmouth, claims to have discovered the cause of crime. He blames this woman, Mitch Egan, who is a Regional Offender Manager, overseeing nine prisons, under the relatively recently created National Offender Management Service (NOMS). According to David Davies MP: "It's people like this woman who are responsible for crime being out of control in this country".
US used psychologists in torture of Guantanamo Bay detainees
Evidence that the US used psychologists in torture of Guantanamo Bay detainees emerged yesterday in a declassified Department of Defence (DoD) report entitled Review of DoD-Directed Investigations of Detainee Abuse. The report was published by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). "In this report is conclusive evidence from the oversight division of the DoD confirming that psychologists played a central role in the development of the regime of psychological torture used at the US detention facilities at Guantánamo and in Iraq and Afghanistan".
The OIG report confirms previous media reports "that the military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) program had been "reverse-engineered" to develop the harsh interrogation techniques used in our country's detention facilities housing terrorist suspects".
When these media reports claimed that psychologists had a hand in formulating the torture techniques used, the "leadership of the American Psychological Association (APA) ignored or disparaged them; in each case reiterating the APA policy statement, that "psychologists have a critical role in keeping interrogations safe, legal, ethical and effective".
The same methods used by the US to torture detainees in the war against terror have previously been "described as torture by the United States government in State Department human rights reports for decades".
UPDATE: Dizzy Thinks that torture is amusing and is upset that I do not appreciate his sense of humour.
This horror is what Dizzy Thinks finds amusing.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Latvians, fags and tax.
Some friends came from Latvia yesterday, a former prison officer, a serving prison officer, and two serving police officers. Odd guests at the Bates Motel. They brought me a 200 pack of Winston Red cigarettes. They tell me that they sell for 72p for 20 in Latvia. It reminded me when I could buy a 2oz pack of Old Holborn tobacco in prison in the 1970s for 72p. The same cigarettes I can buy on the black market in Hull for £2.50. Or, if I was crazy enough, £5 if I paid Gordon Brown's ridiculous tax. It got me to wondering how much tax is lost to the black market trade in cigarette tax? And, surely, now we are part of Europe our cigarettes should only be 72p for twenty?
George Bush is a T.W.A.T.
If anybody doubts that George Bush is a T.W.A.T. one only has to read about the CIA's terrorism in the form of kidnap, false imprisonment and torture in the secret prisons throughout Europe.
One clown too many at the G8 Summit
Suspected terrorist turns up at the G8 Summit cleverly disguised as a clown. However, the riot police saw through this disguise and covertly followed him wherever he went...
Handbags at dawn...
I did notice Cherie Blair at the G8 Conference, and I couldn't help thinking seeing her pear-shaped that if she had asked me "Does my bum look big in this?", I would have had to reply truthfully and say "Yes".
Sheriff's shining star
The cranky Los Angeles Sheriff who decided to free a jailbird 3 days after a judge had sentenced her to 45 days imprisonment, has claimed that one of the reasons he decided to release her was that he believed that the judge had got it all wrong. This miscarriage of justice makes the Birmingham 6, and Guildford 4 cases pale into insignificance.
This poor woman just happened to be driving whilst disqualified, in a drunken state, and with the headlights off, going down Sunset Boulevard at night, and she was spotted by the Highway Patrol. The black box recorder in the patrol car recorded the dialogue between the two patrol officers:
Officer 1: "Oh look, there's a star".
Officer 2: "Right let's pull her over for being a star. It's a criminal offence in America to be a star".
The judge took a different view. He believed that her offences were related to drink driving, driving whilst disqualified and driving at night without lights. What a senile old judge.
The star who shall remain nameless to protect her privacy said:
"Mom! Mom! Mom!". Obviously, a mummy's girl. She added:
"It's not fair. It's not right!"
The star is famous chiefly for being spoilt and rich.
The Right Dishonourable Iain Dale
The "C word" I feel that Iain Dale of Iain Dale's Diary ought to be more concerned with is not the slang term for the female genitalia, rather it is "cyber-bullying". Yesterday, Tim Ireland of Bloggerheads has posted on a similar theme.
I believe that my argument with Iain Dale is a valid one. It goes back to his making an announcement on his blog and on 18doughtystreet.com that he intended inviting me on to 18doughtystreet.com to join a debate on the prisoners votes case. Even though I accepted the offer, I heard no more about it. Naturally, I wondered why I heard no more about it from Iain Dale. I felt that, at the very least, he owed me an explanation as I had a legitimate expectation he would honour his promise.
No explanation was forthcoming from Iain Dale until both Unity and Tim Ireland posted about this issue. Then I decided that I would raise the issue with Iain Dale and ask for a honest explanation. However, rather than offer a believable explanation Iain Dale chose instead to offer a pathetic excuse which did not stand up to scrutiny. All Iain Dale achieved was to add insult to injury. He then sought to appease me with a revised offer to appear on 18DS, a few words within a 10-15 minute item. This would not have done justice to the cause of prisoners human rights to vote, and on that basis alone I would have rejected the few crumbs off his table. What narked me most about this revised offer, was that it came with strings attached. That is, it was conditional upon me removing the link in my sidebar to Tim Ireland's Iain Dale's Dairy. Just who the fuck does he think he is to dictate terms like this to me? Given that he claimed that his argument against Tim Ireland is that he claims Tim Ireland is trying to police the blogosphere, here was a prime example of a hypocrite.
Now, Iain Dale is claiming that I am insulting him by calling him both a liar and a hypocrite. According to my dictionary "insult - to affront; outrage; offend". When Unity posted Honest John, I did not deem this post to be an insult, nor an affront, nor was I outraged nor offended by it, because it spoke the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts. Just because Iain Dale feels hurt about the truth does not make it an insult.
I had cause to email Iain Dale to draw his attention to the insults and lies that had been launched against me on his post about Rachel North London and her cyber-stalker Felicity Jane Lowde who had been arrested by police. Here follows the emails:
From: John Hirst [mailto:john.hirst@myhaven.karoo.co.uk]
Sent: 07 June 2007 21:14
To: iain@iaindale.com
Subject: the hitch
I see he has been busy again on the Rachel/FJL post.
From: Iain Dale
To: 'John Hirst'
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 12:13 AM
Subject: RE: the hitch
Despite the fact that you continually insult me on your blog by calling me a liar and a hypocrite I have deleted the personal comments about you on the Rachel North thread tonight.
From: John Hirst [mailto:john.hirst@myhaven.karoo.co.uk]
Sent: 08 June 2007 23:53
To: Iain Dale
Subject: Re: the hitch
"Without prejudice"
Letter before action.
Iain
You stated that you would remove the offending posts. They are still there as of today. I am getting fed up of your antics. Now you know of my past you cannot claim that you do not know the legal difference between a murderer and manslaughterer. Whilst I do not claim that these cyber-bullies are doing your work for you, it is your blog and you are allowing it to happen. Therefore, you cannot deny legal liability. Please remove the offending posts forthwith.
John
The Hitch said...
For once I will support the axe murderer,
At least he is open about his failings (insanity) and recognises them.
I consider him to be morally Superior to both Blair and Cameron and certainly more intelligent than Blair.
Two people who have caused far more misery in this world whilst supposedly sane.
June 08, 2007 2:31 AM
not very verity said...
verity said...
How faintly amusing that a real life axe murderer, who made himself a relaxing cup of tea after he murdered an old lady in her own home, where he was a trusted lodger, and tried to joke around about the murder with the police, is spewing out dainty platitudes about a cyber stalker.
You have posted this or similar on many occasions.It has become boring much like you.
June 08, 2007 11:04 AM
Iain Dale's response "Don’t threaten me. It won’t get you anywhere. For the record I have had about 500 emails today. Yours got overlooked. You have the cheek to threaten me with libel. In order to win a libel action you need to have a reputation to defend. You do not. If anyone should be launching a libel action against anyone it is me against you. I will be removing those posts but not as a result of your ridiculous threats- and for the record, I made no prior agreement to delete them. My previous emails referred to posts from last night which I did remove as soon as I got home.
If you had any humanity about you, you would also remove your deeply libellous posts about me from your blog, but I know better than to expect that from you, of course".
My response - An open letter to Iain Dale:
Dear Iain Dale,
Please do not confuse a legal threat with any other kind of threat because the former is perfectly legal whereas what you are suggesting is that I have made an illegal threat.
As for it won't get me anywhere, I think I will let a judge decide where it gets me. Your being a judge in your own cause falls foul of natural justice in the sense that you display a bias in your favour.
Congratulations on the amount of emails you have received today. No prizes though for the oversight in relation to mine. Do I detect a contempt for me in this? If so, let us hope that you do not show contempt for the law. I understand that judges do not take kindly to people who adopt this kind of attitude.
I have a cheek both sides of my face. However, this does not make me two-faced. I will leave this accolade to you. For your information, it is a legal requirement before beginning or contemplating any legal proceeding to send the other party a letter before action. It provides the claimant with the opportunity to air any grievances, and also provides the defendant with the opportunity to settle the matter out of court by seeking to address the grievances. As it happens, I did not refer to libel. Although this is one area of law that I would have considered. I am more concerned with the harassment aspect. If I was you, I would change my lawyer if this is the kind of advice that you have received: "In order to win a libel action you need to have a reputation to defend. You do not". This smacks of arrogance rather than the legal position. In legal circles and in the media I have a very good reputation.
I will be more than happy to see you and your lawyers in court trying to claim that you are neither a liar and a hypocrite. I accept your challenge and pick up your gauntlet. You can pick up your own dummy that you have spat out.
I have got humanity. However, I fail to see what it has got to do with removing the truth and genuine freedom of expression from my blog to placate your apparently "I prefer to live in a lie world" mentality.
I look forward to your response,
Yours sincerely
John Hirst aka jailhouselawyer.
I believe that my argument with Iain Dale is a valid one. It goes back to his making an announcement on his blog and on 18doughtystreet.com that he intended inviting me on to 18doughtystreet.com to join a debate on the prisoners votes case. Even though I accepted the offer, I heard no more about it. Naturally, I wondered why I heard no more about it from Iain Dale. I felt that, at the very least, he owed me an explanation as I had a legitimate expectation he would honour his promise.
No explanation was forthcoming from Iain Dale until both Unity and Tim Ireland posted about this issue. Then I decided that I would raise the issue with Iain Dale and ask for a honest explanation. However, rather than offer a believable explanation Iain Dale chose instead to offer a pathetic excuse which did not stand up to scrutiny. All Iain Dale achieved was to add insult to injury. He then sought to appease me with a revised offer to appear on 18DS, a few words within a 10-15 minute item. This would not have done justice to the cause of prisoners human rights to vote, and on that basis alone I would have rejected the few crumbs off his table. What narked me most about this revised offer, was that it came with strings attached. That is, it was conditional upon me removing the link in my sidebar to Tim Ireland's Iain Dale's Dairy. Just who the fuck does he think he is to dictate terms like this to me? Given that he claimed that his argument against Tim Ireland is that he claims Tim Ireland is trying to police the blogosphere, here was a prime example of a hypocrite.
Now, Iain Dale is claiming that I am insulting him by calling him both a liar and a hypocrite. According to my dictionary "insult - to affront; outrage; offend". When Unity posted Honest John, I did not deem this post to be an insult, nor an affront, nor was I outraged nor offended by it, because it spoke the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts. Just because Iain Dale feels hurt about the truth does not make it an insult.
I had cause to email Iain Dale to draw his attention to the insults and lies that had been launched against me on his post about Rachel North London and her cyber-stalker Felicity Jane Lowde who had been arrested by police. Here follows the emails:
From: John Hirst [mailto:john.hirst@myhaven.karoo.co.uk]
Sent: 07 June 2007 21:14
To: iain@iaindale.com
Subject: the hitch
I see he has been busy again on the Rachel/FJL post.
From: Iain Dale
To: 'John Hirst'
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 12:13 AM
Subject: RE: the hitch
Despite the fact that you continually insult me on your blog by calling me a liar and a hypocrite I have deleted the personal comments about you on the Rachel North thread tonight.
From: John Hirst [mailto:john.hirst@myhaven.karoo.co.uk]
Sent: 08 June 2007 23:53
To: Iain Dale
Subject: Re: the hitch
"Without prejudice"
Letter before action.
Iain
You stated that you would remove the offending posts. They are still there as of today. I am getting fed up of your antics. Now you know of my past you cannot claim that you do not know the legal difference between a murderer and manslaughterer. Whilst I do not claim that these cyber-bullies are doing your work for you, it is your blog and you are allowing it to happen. Therefore, you cannot deny legal liability. Please remove the offending posts forthwith.
John
The Hitch said...
For once I will support the axe murderer,
At least he is open about his failings (insanity) and recognises them.
I consider him to be morally Superior to both Blair and Cameron and certainly more intelligent than Blair.
Two people who have caused far more misery in this world whilst supposedly sane.
June 08, 2007 2:31 AM
not very verity said...
verity said...
How faintly amusing that a real life axe murderer, who made himself a relaxing cup of tea after he murdered an old lady in her own home, where he was a trusted lodger, and tried to joke around about the murder with the police, is spewing out dainty platitudes about a cyber stalker.
You have posted this or similar on many occasions.It has become boring much like you.
June 08, 2007 11:04 AM
Iain Dale's response "Don’t threaten me. It won’t get you anywhere. For the record I have had about 500 emails today. Yours got overlooked. You have the cheek to threaten me with libel. In order to win a libel action you need to have a reputation to defend. You do not. If anyone should be launching a libel action against anyone it is me against you. I will be removing those posts but not as a result of your ridiculous threats- and for the record, I made no prior agreement to delete them. My previous emails referred to posts from last night which I did remove as soon as I got home.
If you had any humanity about you, you would also remove your deeply libellous posts about me from your blog, but I know better than to expect that from you, of course".
My response - An open letter to Iain Dale:
Dear Iain Dale,
Please do not confuse a legal threat with any other kind of threat because the former is perfectly legal whereas what you are suggesting is that I have made an illegal threat.
As for it won't get me anywhere, I think I will let a judge decide where it gets me. Your being a judge in your own cause falls foul of natural justice in the sense that you display a bias in your favour.
Congratulations on the amount of emails you have received today. No prizes though for the oversight in relation to mine. Do I detect a contempt for me in this? If so, let us hope that you do not show contempt for the law. I understand that judges do not take kindly to people who adopt this kind of attitude.
I have a cheek both sides of my face. However, this does not make me two-faced. I will leave this accolade to you. For your information, it is a legal requirement before beginning or contemplating any legal proceeding to send the other party a letter before action. It provides the claimant with the opportunity to air any grievances, and also provides the defendant with the opportunity to settle the matter out of court by seeking to address the grievances. As it happens, I did not refer to libel. Although this is one area of law that I would have considered. I am more concerned with the harassment aspect. If I was you, I would change my lawyer if this is the kind of advice that you have received: "In order to win a libel action you need to have a reputation to defend. You do not". This smacks of arrogance rather than the legal position. In legal circles and in the media I have a very good reputation.
I will be more than happy to see you and your lawyers in court trying to claim that you are neither a liar and a hypocrite. I accept your challenge and pick up your gauntlet. You can pick up your own dummy that you have spat out.
I have got humanity. However, I fail to see what it has got to do with removing the truth and genuine freedom of expression from my blog to placate your apparently "I prefer to live in a lie world" mentality.
I look forward to your response,
Yours sincerely
John Hirst aka jailhouselawyer.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Police Officer banned for drink-driving
Officer banned for drink-driving
A police officer who runs road safety campaigns for Humberside Police has been banned from driving.
Pc Andy Walker, 51, was almost twice the legal alcohol limit when he was breathalysed near his home in Beverley, East Yorkshire, last Sunday morning.
He admitted driving over the prescribed alcohol limit at Bridlington Magistrates' Court on Friday and was banned from driving for 16 months.
The officer now faces internal misconduct proceedings.
The court heard Walker had driven home in his Jaguar car from a family party at a hotel in Hull when he was spotted having difficulty parking.
'Let it go'
He was breathalysed by a police officer and found to have 61 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath.
The legal limit is 35 micrograms.
The court was told he had consumed two pints of beer and a glass of wine at the party. He waited for 30 minutes in the car park of the hotel for a taxi but when one did not arrive he decided he was fit enough to drive home.
Prosecuting, Alex Quigley said Walker had tried to get the officer who carried out the breath test "to deal with it in a different way".
I made a monumental mistake in my judgement... I have not led by example
Pc Andy Walker
Walker told the officer he had only drunk one pint and he should "just let it go, you don't need to do this, I've been in the job 20 years".
In court, Walker said he was "flabbergasted and upset" when the breath test came back positive.
He said: "My employer Humberside Police has been severely embarrassed, I have no doubt, by my appearance here today and I apologise to them and I apologise to the officer who stopped me."
Outside court after the hearing, Walker said: "I made a monumental mistake in my judgement when I decided I was fit enough to drive."
He said he had campaigned on "many, many occasions" about the dangers of drinking and driving, adding: "I have not led by example."
Comment: I couldn't believe this when I heard it. PC Andy Walker said he made a mistake. I don't believe it. This was a deliberate act. He better than most people knows what the amount of alcohol level is for a positive breath test. I am sorry, nothing short of dismissal from the service is what he deserves.
Wright killer found dead in cell
Wright killer found dead in cell
A member of an INLA gang which murdered LVF leader Billy Wright in the Maze Prison in 1997 has been found dead.
It is understood John Kenneway took his own life in his cell in Maghaberry Prison. He was pronounced dead at 1855 BST on Friday.
Last week, Kenneway was refused compassionate temporary release to attend the Christening of a grandchild.
The Prison Ombudsman has launched an investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death.
The inmate's family, the police and the coroner have also been informed of the death.
"The Northern Ireland Prison Service expresses their sincere condolences to the family and friends of the deceased," a prison service spokesperson said.
A public inquiry into Wright's murder began in Banbridge last month.
It was set up following an investigation by retired Canadian judge Peter Cory after Wright's father, David, claimed the murder was the result of collusion.
The LVF leader was shot dead by INLA prisoners who ambushed him inside the high-security prison.
Wright had got into a prison van to be taken to the visitors' area of the jail, when the INLA prisoners climbed over the roof of the H-block and into the prison yard.
Three INLA prisoners, including Kenneway, were later convicted of the killing.
Linked article.
Paris Hilton: In out shake it all about do the Hokey Kokey
Normally I would not wish prison on anybody. With Paris Hilton, I make an exception. She believed that the law was for everybody else but her, and treated it with contempt. I am glad that she is not only being returned to prison, but also that she is going to serve the full term. It's only 45 days. She should be able to do that standing on her head. I look forward to her jail diary...
How much was the Los Angeles County Sheriff bribed to release Paris Hilton?
I hope the judge decides that the Los Angeles County Sheriff who took it upon himself to release Paris Hilton is found in contempt of court. There could be no honest way that such a decision to release Paris Hilton could be taken. Talk about the prisoner bribing a prison guard in Merry Old England, or in a banana republic. But in the USA? It really is the land of the free...
Great Britain is sold to Saudi Arabia
It used to be the case that gullible Americans thought they were buying landmarks in Britain and they were being conned. Now, its the British people who have been conned as we have been sold out. Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General for Saudi Arabia, keeps trying to tell us that he makes decisions on behalf of the British public. Anyone else who has misled Parliament would have to resign. Why is this corrupt official still in public office?Thursday, June 07, 2007
Police catch cyber-stalker in t'net
Iain Dale's Diary reports from the Oxford Mail that Felicity Jane Lowde, the cyber-stalker who has been terrorising Rachel North London has been caught by the police and is now in custody awaiting sentence.
Censoring of internet is 'spreading like virus'
Censoring of internet is 'spreading like virus'
By Richard Spencer in Beijing
Last Updated: 6:43am BST 07/06/2007
# Richard Spencer's blog: The great firewall of China
Dozens of countries are copying China's methods of censoring the internet, Amnesty International said yesterday.
In advance of a live webcast to discuss internet freedom, Amnesty gave warning that censorship was a "virus" that was infecting countries round the world.
Tim Hancock, Amnesty's international campaigns director, said: "The 'Chinese model' of an internet that allows economic growth but not free speech or privacy is growing in popularity, from a handful of countries five years ago to dozens of governments today who block sites and arrest bloggers."
China's 144 million internet users face the most sophisticated controls in the world. Software filters hundreds of millions of emails, web-pages, and mobile phone text messages for key words that trigger either automatic blocks or further investigation by censors.
In addition, internet companies in China, including overseas firms, have to operate systems of self-censorship. The Chinese government claims that the rules are in line with international norms for countering crime such as pornography, but does not deny that they also cover political activity.
Shi Tao, an award-winning reporter on a central Chinese newspaper, is serving 10 years in jail for sending details of one censorship order to Human Rights in China by email.
His details were handed over to police by the American internet firm Yahoo!. Amnesty said such practices could change the internet "beyond all recognition" as they are taken up by other countries.
It cited research by an academic study group, the Open Net Initiative, that at least 25 governments employed filtering for censorship. They included Iran, Burma, and Saudi Arabia but also Western-oriented democracies such as India and South Korea.
The webcast discussion will feature Martha Lane-Fox, the dotcom entrpreneur, and Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, the internet encyclopedia, which is one of thousands of sites permanently blocked in China.
By Richard Spencer in Beijing
Last Updated: 6:43am BST 07/06/2007
# Richard Spencer's blog: The great firewall of China
Dozens of countries are copying China's methods of censoring the internet, Amnesty International said yesterday.
In advance of a live webcast to discuss internet freedom, Amnesty gave warning that censorship was a "virus" that was infecting countries round the world.
Tim Hancock, Amnesty's international campaigns director, said: "The 'Chinese model' of an internet that allows economic growth but not free speech or privacy is growing in popularity, from a handful of countries five years ago to dozens of governments today who block sites and arrest bloggers."
China's 144 million internet users face the most sophisticated controls in the world. Software filters hundreds of millions of emails, web-pages, and mobile phone text messages for key words that trigger either automatic blocks or further investigation by censors.
In addition, internet companies in China, including overseas firms, have to operate systems of self-censorship. The Chinese government claims that the rules are in line with international norms for countering crime such as pornography, but does not deny that they also cover political activity.
Shi Tao, an award-winning reporter on a central Chinese newspaper, is serving 10 years in jail for sending details of one censorship order to Human Rights in China by email.
His details were handed over to police by the American internet firm Yahoo!. Amnesty said such practices could change the internet "beyond all recognition" as they are taken up by other countries.
It cited research by an academic study group, the Open Net Initiative, that at least 25 governments employed filtering for censorship. They included Iran, Burma, and Saudi Arabia but also Western-oriented democracies such as India and South Korea.
The webcast discussion will feature Martha Lane-Fox, the dotcom entrpreneur, and Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, the internet encyclopedia, which is one of thousands of sites permanently blocked in China.
Help police crash bang wallop...
All the fun of the fair, but no dodgems, as these police drivers manage to hit other cars in reverse.
I didn't realise that maneatingcheesesandwich got about so much in his old age...
Finger of suspicion pointing at the McCanns
I beg to differ with the McCanns claim that they are good parents and not suspects. It is about time that somebody started to ask them some uncomfortable questions.
Unfortunately, the Telegraph report still refers to an abduction. However, if the McCanns are involved with Madeliene's disappearance it would not be an abduction would it? I keep going back to square one, there is no evidence to support the theory that there was any abduction. The obvious suspects should be the parents. It is only they who are claiming that there was an abduction in the first place. I am not convinced by their explanations. I suspect that the story is an invention to cover what really happened.
UPDATE: Same story from The Times. However, as the comments are interesting I include them here.
If I had left my kids (personally, I'd never entrust them to a stranger) in a foreign location, and lost one of them, I would be doing everything I could to get them back. If it meant prostituting myself for the media, then so be it.
As far as I'm concerned the McCanns only failure was to put their own personal "time" above the wellbeing of their children.
Steven, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear
Why on earth would you leave your young kids at home in a country who are liberal to pedos?
Sorry, they must be in an awful lot of pain and hopefully a very large lesson has been learned.
Lets just keep praying for her safe return.
alison , glasgow,
The first rule of investigation is, everyone is a suspect. Nothing should be ruled out. Remember Tracey Andrewes who was equally calm and collected when she made appeals to find the murderer of her boyfried? She did it herself. Most murders are committed by familiy members. The McCanns should not be immune from investigation.
Dan Holness, London, UK
It was not surprising that the McCanns were asked this question. After all, most abducted children are taken by someone they know, so the parents would, initially at least, have been considered as potential suspects. Obviously anyone who knows the story and has watched the McCanns over the past month cannot doubt their genuine love for all of their children. But perhaps in Germany where the story has not had the same coverage people have not yet reached this conclusion?
The McCanns are "together" because they are good parents and are keeping their family in one piece for their other children and so that if they get Medeleine back she has a family to return to. They are "collected" because they are using their intellegence to do whatever they can to help their daughter. I wish them all the best.
Laura, London,
I have been a victim of double child abduction, the police failed to investigate it, the courts failed to have a public hearing, and the media are not interested because I am a single father.
I pray Mady is returned to her parents, but the media need to now that tens of thousands of children are abducted in the UK from fathers by mothers.
The case of Mady has become media currency and UK fathers have to endure the same as Mady's parents on their own without comfort from anybody.
John, Waterloo, UK
If it was my child, I would like to believe I would act exactly the same.
Charlotte, Hull, UK
This reporter, Sabine Mueller is just typical East German for you. I've known quite a few East German in the past; they all seem pretty cold and heartless. I suppose this is what you get after years growing up in a communist system. The McCannes had chosen the wrong country to expect any sympathy. Lets hope their strength is not dampened by this thoughtless and senseless question. Hang in there, Kate and Gerry. Our prayers are with you everyday.
Mrs Susan Tso, Hong Kong, PRC
The fact that this has turned into such a 'commercial' venture is what is raising suspicion. It leaves a bad taste. Publicity is very good but the direction this is going down is worrying (i.e. the constant plugs for their blog/website).
Plus, they seem to forget that they do actually have two children with them that might just need to be spending a bit more time with mum and dad. Daycare is not an adequate substitute.
Hopefully their daughter is safe, hopefully she will be found. I am not as hopeful of a positive outcome as others, but when all is said and done, there is always hope.
Rob, Dublin,
I hope and pray that madeline is returned to you soon, unharmed!
Stephen Cimini, Pittsfield, mass. usa
"I have never heard before that anyone considers us suspects in this" (Mr Mcann)
And they won't hear it if the British press don't let that view come across. No-one I know discounts them as suspects. Given that no-one knows what happened, how can they be discounted? Curious that what should be a fairly obvious obvious point is first allowed to surface in foreign media.
philip, cambridge,
Yes, the McCann's behaviour since Maddie disappeared is most definately outside 'the norm'. In my knowledge, no parents have EVER done as much as the McCanns in order to re-unite a fractured family. The way that they have managed to mobilise the media world-wide (well beyond the average 3-4 day shelf life a story like this normally has) and garner such support from millions of total strangers is a super-human effort. Most other parents, in a similar situation, would rely on the police to find their child, but Gerry and Kate have taken the bull by the horns and driven the search themselves. THEY, not the Portugese police, are the reason that we all know of Maddie now, and to suggest that they are involved in her abduction is an insult to their efforts.
Roland, Perth, Australia
Don't get so hysterical! Most people in the world have never been to Portugal. How can they be suspects???
Ben, York,
i cant believe what your going through.it must be very sad for the parents,well i be the same.so hang on .i prays every night.
bless ye.
brian, tipperary, ireland
Any Parent can understand how awful this must be for the mc canns
they need our help
if they had hidden away and not attempted to find their baby,people would have critised that too.
they must be very strong and determined people and a very strong couple.
How dare anyone pass judgement on them.
It doesnt matter what the circumstances before the abduction were,it should not have happened,but it did,but now the most important thing is to FIND MADDY.
and thats all anyone should be concentrating on.
lisa, erith, kent
Excuse me but the Times interviewed a social services child expert who said their conduct with regard to leaving their children was considered normal as they were very close by. Further to that, there have never been parents who have done more to search for a missing child. I applaud their enormous strength of character and determination. I hope the McCanns understand that some peole only lash out when they are upset. The truth is everyone wishes Madeleine were home with her parents now and that the cowardly person who took her finds the humanity to return her to her family where she belongs or leaves her in a safe public hospital, hands her to a store clerk or restauranteur, etc.
Emma H., Orillia, CAN
Belinda's comment should make us all feel grateful that we as adults have not suffered what the McCanns are going through. Thank you Belinda.
Marek, London,
Is anyone getting a little fed up with all this stuff about Madeleine in the press? What about all the hundreds of kids who have awful illnesses, where if money was available their life could be prolonged?
RAY SMITH, Sutton,
i belive it isnt her fault and everyone should lighten up on the mother and father because they must be in loads of distress
Jacob, Bedford, England
They have lost their child to a person/people/place unknown, there can be nothing nothing worse. Support them and support them well.
lesley newland, Maidstone, Kent
The greatness of people is shown whenever something difficult, in this case awfull, is overcomed. The odissey of this parents around the world using global means to avoid that this issue of missing children, simbolised by lovely Madeleine, can never be forgotten is an heroic achievement, because for the most of us their pain would unable any move.
Let's hope their faith allows the miracle to happen. It will for sure be a great lesson to the whole western world who, in spite of all its pretense development and tolerence still is able to judge when the moment implies support and solidarity.
"Dont' judge to not be judged" ( quotation from the Bible)
Helena Borges, Funchal, Portugal
"outside the norm" - There is nothing normal about having your child taken from you, to live with the fear of not knowing what the outcome will be - I can not imagine anything worse for a couple to endure. The McCanns’ could be any of us who take our holidays in the sun with the kids. They can not be criticised, in fact the opposite is true, they have both shown tremendous courage and bravery throughout this ordeal and they have done what any good parent would do in the same situation. 'Do whatever it takes and everything possible to get their child back'. I just hope and pray the person(s) who took Madeleine McCann can reflect on the pain they have caused Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry. I hope this person(s) can find the courage to take responsibility and return Madeleine to her mum and dad.
Milo, Birmingham, England
Sorry Elle but that's too cynical for words....this is real life not a Hollywood film. The McCanns need compassion and support - not conspiracy stories.
Rosie Blackburn, Woking, England
I just wish their was something I could do. Kate and Gerry are amazing I would have gone to pieces by now. I think of Madeleine a lot and I just wish she could be found it makes me feel sick to think of her away from her mum. My daughter is 17 now but she always relies on me and I don't know what I would do without her. Please ge ther home soon.
Jackie Tipping, Cherrsey Surrey, England
Wonderful people - I wish them all the best
Luisa, Burela - Lugo, Spain
The immediate reaction to have is that the McCanns are going too far in their bid to get their daughter back, but if you really think about then perhaps there would be more cases in which the family do get their child back. The media is possibly the most powerful entity in the world today and there will be very few people today in western europe who have not heard about Madeleine's tragic story, this will work wonders for the search party. I, like many many others, have never encountered Madeleine McCann in person yet i could be highly confident that i would recognise her should I see her now. I think that what her parents are doing is testament to how much love Mr and Mrs McCann have for their child and i can see no gain in accusing them of the abduction of their own child, what exactly would be the point, short-thinking minority of the world?
Will , York,
Elle Morgan - I notice that your definition of the word "suspect" does not involve evidence or any reasonable grounds for suspicion, but includes everyone in the entire world. The McCanns have at various times wept, pleaded for anyone with information to come forward, prayed, and pulled out all the stops to ensure that their missing daughter is not forgotten or slips from public view (and someone out there knows something - what better way to ensure that they come forward than keeping this as a headline issue?). What part of all this is "outside the norm", by your standards? What on earth do you consider normal? They have done what any human being (apart from you, apparently) would do and fought hard to ensure that everything that can be done is being done.
Mark, Worthing,
The parents are doing their best, but it is still NOT good enough! The investigtion needs to engage not disengage, what that means is that you cannot rely on the vehicle to get there... you need to rely on your intuition and you humanity...and of course the spirit of life...
prayer is helpful ; but essentially ... you need to get off the grid to find this girl. technology will not find her.
robin, london, uk
I find it absolutely shocking that anyone are accusing the Mccann's of being part of the disappearance of their beloved daughter!!!!!! Whoever came up with that idea, must be seriously SICK and need help!!!! Their "only" wrong doing, was leaving the children unattended, for which they will pay for the rest of their lives, NO MATTER what the outcome of this tragic case is!!! It is OBVIOUS they are loving parents.... just look at the photos of little Madeleine...that tells it all!!! Give them a break and help find that poor little innocent child - and get her re-united with her family, where she belongs!!!! Little one, try and stay strong, help is hopefully on its way....bless you XXX
Susanne, Altea, Spain
God Bless Gerry and Kate, Can't imagine what you are going through
I pary for Madeleine everyday
Susan , Kildare, Ireland
Perhaps now is the time for the McCanns to consider spearheading the setting up of a European based charity to search for "Loved ones - Stolen?". The search for Madeleine (as a UK resident) being at the forefront of course.
The search could commence by picking out the most recent "disappearances" of children below say the age of 8 from Portugal, Spain, Germany, France, Italy etc. It would make sense perhaps to commence a specific search for a child of Portugeuse residency?
Wayne Lord, Derby,
Don't be ridiculous. They are simply trying to keep this story in the public domain (for perfectly understandable reasons). Anyway, Elle, how can any of us really make a judgment about what is "normal" behaviour for a distraught parent in a situation like this. Were I in their shoes I would do everything they are doing. I applaud them for doing it and hope it works. If Madeleine is returned to her parents as a result of someone looking at her picture, watching an interview, people like you will feel pretty silly. Let's face it, what else can they do?
Sam, London,
WE CAN NOT LET THE INNOCENT OF THE WORLD PERISH. WE ALL NEED TO TAKE A STAND.
1200 children go missing everyday in the US, that is 800,000 per year. 500,000 of those are never reported sometimes because it is a divorced parent that takes them.
Madeleine was very carefully abducted and is a child that belongs to the world. If nothing else, she has brought our focus to a positive measure. Yes, there is evil around every turn, and yes some parents make really stupid mistakes with their children. But, who would expect this?
STOP BEING MAD AT THE WRONG PEOPLE!
The world is mad, and needs something, anything to cling to. It may be to blame, depression, anger, whatever.
The fact still remains that there is two possible outcomes, she is found, or never found.
Be human everyone, show some compassion, and take a look in the mirror or where you live and wonder how the world got this way? We can't just let the innocence of the world perish!
Susan, Spata, NJ
I just wish that they get their child safe and sound.I can't even picture myself losing my child i will dye my child means a lot to me .I also have a 3 year old girl.
They need to be strong ,good luck.
zoe, cape town, south africa
Elle - Why do you not understand. In crisis people are be drawn together or pulled apart, also they seem to have a personal faith. What would you do if your son/daughter was abducted? all they are trying to do is get their daughter back. Behaviour outside the norm - they are not in a normally situation so of course their behaviour is outside the norm. Do you believe they are suspects? everyone is a suspect including you.
I see your heart goes out to the misssing child but not to her parents.
Peter Giblin, Dublin, Ireland
Hi my name is Belinda and i'm only 12 but i just have to say that i believe that madeleine is still alive and is still somewhere out there. I wear a yellow ribbon and I pray for maddie every day. I just hope that she will be returned safely to her parents and her twin brother and sister.
Belinda, Stoke-On-Trent, u.k
my heart goes out for any missing child. But, I do not understand how collected and "together" the McCanns are in this sorry affair. Their behaviour since the "abduction" has been outside the "norm". Does that make them suspects? Yes, everyone is a suspect the world over and they are not exempt!
elle morgan, cwmbran, wales
Paris Hilton freed after just 3 days
Is someone taking the piss or what? First Paris Hilton was sentenced to 45 days, then this sentence was halved because it was deemed that she was of such good behaviour for bothering to turn up at court. Now, unbelievably, a further 20 days has been taken off her sentence.
Either the warden appreciated the fuck or she has fucked the system over...
UPDATE: Surprise, surprise. Money talks. Paris Hilton released on medical grounds. It appears as though she was sick of prison already!
Updated update: Political Opinions take on the story: Today's entertainment news condensed
LibDem Blogs - Liberal Democrats
Posted Thursday 07th of June 2007 7:16 PM
Paris Hilton turns down job with Alan Sugar after he calls her a nigger, saying she needs to speak to her parents who are unwell in jail because their breasts are too big. PS. I very vaguely know a Big Brother contestant, having gone to school with Ziggy Lichman for about a year when I was 11. I remember him being very blond.
Computer up and running again
Phil the geek fixed my computer and returned it today, only to find that the monitor would not work. So, down to the second hand computer shop for another monitor. There were a load of emails which he transferred to Thunderbird, and they somehow disappeared into the system not to be found again...
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Racist police spy on racist police and the public pay £4M for this police farce
The institutionalised racist Metropolitian Police spent £4M of taxpayers money spying on Ali Dizaei who was at the time a Metrpolitan Police Superintendent and legal adviser to the National Black Police Officer Association (NBPA), which in itself is a racist organisation by reverse discrimination.
When the law breaks the law there is no law.
When the law breaks the law there is no law.
BNP jibe at lawyer who opposed veiled judges
BNP jibe at lawyer who opposed veiled judges
By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor
Last Updated: 6:16am BST 06/06/2007
A barrister who argued that Muslim judges in Britain should never wear the veil in court has been accused by a fellow barrister of deploying the arguments of the British National Party.
Barbara Hewson was commenting on guidance issued to judges earlier this year by the Judicial Studies Board.
The advice did not rule out the possibility that women judges, magistrates or tribunal members might wear the niqab, or veil, in court.
Instead, it asked rhetorically: "Is the constituency which is served by the courts entitled to see the person dispensing justice?"
Miss Hewson, writing in the Bar Council's magazine Counsel, said it was worrying that the board's advice contemplated the possibility of veiled judges.
Describing the guidance as "astonishing and subversive", she said: "The United Kingdom is not a sharia state."
Responding in the magazine, Fatim Kurji wrote: "As for veiled judges and the suggestion that the 'United Kingdom is not a sharia state', this is what I call 'the BNP argument'.
It implies a woman who wears a niqab comes at the erosion of British values. Such an astonishingly offensive remark undermines the long-enduring libertarian values."
Miss Kurji said she was no fan of niqab but even less so of a legal system "that restricts access to justice on the basis of religious expression".
By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor
Last Updated: 6:16am BST 06/06/2007
A barrister who argued that Muslim judges in Britain should never wear the veil in court has been accused by a fellow barrister of deploying the arguments of the British National Party.
Barbara Hewson was commenting on guidance issued to judges earlier this year by the Judicial Studies Board.
The advice did not rule out the possibility that women judges, magistrates or tribunal members might wear the niqab, or veil, in court.
Instead, it asked rhetorically: "Is the constituency which is served by the courts entitled to see the person dispensing justice?"
Miss Hewson, writing in the Bar Council's magazine Counsel, said it was worrying that the board's advice contemplated the possibility of veiled judges.
Describing the guidance as "astonishing and subversive", she said: "The United Kingdom is not a sharia state."
Responding in the magazine, Fatim Kurji wrote: "As for veiled judges and the suggestion that the 'United Kingdom is not a sharia state', this is what I call 'the BNP argument'.
It implies a woman who wears a niqab comes at the erosion of British values. Such an astonishingly offensive remark undermines the long-enduring libertarian values."
Miss Kurji said she was no fan of niqab but even less so of a legal system "that restricts access to justice on the basis of religious expression".
Madeliene: What if?
This story just shows how easily the headline could have read "Madeliene father facing murder charge".
When the red mist descends.
When the red mist descends.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Gordon "control freak" Brown
Gordon Brown recently stated that he was going to protect citizens liberties by removing them from citizens. And, to keep these citizens safe from the threat of home grown terrorists and terrorist threats from abroad, Gordon Brown intends to do this by keeping these citizens in safe custody for 3 months without charge or trial whilst the police torture them into a confession. This conduct will justify an otherwise unlawful arrest. It used to be the case that the offence was committed first, then on the basis of evidence came the arrest followed by a trial. I predict that somewhere in the region of 20,000 people will suddenly find themselves subject to these new draconian powers that Gordon Brown is seeking. I thought that Tony Blair was a bad enough control freak...
American Werewolf in Brighton...
Police link full moon to aggression
Fred Attewill
Tuesday June 5, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Police have linked full moons to a rise in aggressive behaviour among drinkers on the streets of Brighton.
Senior officers have decided to deploy more officers this summer to counter trouble they believe is linked to the lunar cycle.
A Sussex police spokeswoman said today: "Research carried out by us has shown a correlation between violent incidents and full moons."
Another monthly factor which police chiefs identified as fuelling violence in pubs and nightclubs in Brighton and Hove was pay days.
Inspector Andy Parr told the Brighton Argus evening paper he would be interested in discussing the police findings with academics. He said: "I compared a graph of full moons and a graph of last year's violent crimes and there is a trend. "People tend to be more aggressive.
"I would be interested in approaching universities and seeing if any of their post-graduates would be interested in looking into it further. This could be helpful to us."
Brighton bouncer Terry Wing agreed with the theory. "It's so true. When there is a full moon out we look at the sky and say, 'Oh no, all the idiots will be out tonight.' I will start looking at the back of people's hands for hair next time." The link between full moons and extremes in human behaviour has been identified in past scientific studies.
In 1998, a three-month psychological study of 1,200 inmates at Armley jail in Leeds discovered a rise in violent incidents during the days either side of a full moon.
During the first and last quarter of each lunar month there was a marked increase in violent incidents.
But during the other period of every lunar month, there were far fewer incidents and none at all on some days.
The Oxford English dictionary defines "lunatic" as "affected with the kind of insanity that was supposed to have recurring periods, depending on changes of the moon."
However, any link between the lunar cycle and human behaviour has yet to be explained scientifically.
Paris Hilton - I'm a celebrity get me out of here
The new Paris Hilton Hotel formally the Century Regional Detention Facility at Los Angeles County.
Award for writer jailed over email
Award for writer jailed over email
By Richard Spencer in Beijing
Last Updated: 2:28am BST 05/06/2007
A Chinese journalist jailed for 10 years on the basis of information provided by the internet company Yahoo! yesterday won the Golden Pen of Freedom, the annual award of the World Association of Newspapers.
Shi Tao, a reporter, writer and poet, was accused of leaking state secrets after emailing to the activist group Human Rights in China details of a censorship order dictating what could be reported in the run-up to the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 2004.
After the Chinese public security bureau traced the email address from which the details had been sent, it ordered Yahoo! to hand over details of the user.
The company was attacked by human rights campaigners for allowing itself to become complicit in China's repressive media laws. It currently has more journalists in jail, particularly for writings on the internet, than any other country.
Yahoo! claimed it had no choice but to comply with local laws.
"Even today, most Chinese know nothing about what happened," George Brock, the president of the World Editors Forum, who presented the award, said of the massacre.
"The Communist regime continues to prevent the Chinese media from talking and writing about it openly and honestly and will go to great lengths to silence any such revelations and to severely punish those who make them.
"Shi Tao, whom we are honouring here today, has learned this to his own great cost. He revealed what the state did not want known and he pays the price in prison."
By Richard Spencer in Beijing
Last Updated: 2:28am BST 05/06/2007
A Chinese journalist jailed for 10 years on the basis of information provided by the internet company Yahoo! yesterday won the Golden Pen of Freedom, the annual award of the World Association of Newspapers.
Shi Tao, a reporter, writer and poet, was accused of leaking state secrets after emailing to the activist group Human Rights in China details of a censorship order dictating what could be reported in the run-up to the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 2004.
After the Chinese public security bureau traced the email address from which the details had been sent, it ordered Yahoo! to hand over details of the user.
The company was attacked by human rights campaigners for allowing itself to become complicit in China's repressive media laws. It currently has more journalists in jail, particularly for writings on the internet, than any other country.
Yahoo! claimed it had no choice but to comply with local laws.
"Even today, most Chinese know nothing about what happened," George Brock, the president of the World Editors Forum, who presented the award, said of the massacre.
"The Communist regime continues to prevent the Chinese media from talking and writing about it openly and honestly and will go to great lengths to silence any such revelations and to severely punish those who make them.
"Shi Tao, whom we are honouring here today, has learned this to his own great cost. He revealed what the state did not want known and he pays the price in prison."
A killing machine - how careless?
I find this case incredible. As far as I am concerned, it is not careless driving to be doing 55mph on the wrong side of the road whilst drunk. This in my view is dangerous driving. I fail to see why Morphey has not been charged with manslaughter for the five lives he was responsible for killing. Even if he gets the maximum sentence of ten years, that's only two years apiece for each life lost, then there is the reduction in sentence. He will probably only serve 3 years 4 months. He's a killing machine, just what we need in the Army. They will probably keep his job open for him when he is released.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Hilton begins jail sentence
Hilton begins jail sentence
Staff and agencies
Monday June 4, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
The socialite Paris Hilton has begun a jail sentence for violating her probation, her lawyer has said.
"Paris Hilton has turned herself in to begin serving her sentence for violating probation at a Los Angeles county jail located in Lynwood, California," Richard Hutton confirmed in a statement yesterday.
The statement quoted 26-year-old hotel heiress Hilton as saying: "This is an important point in my life, and I need to take responsibility for my actions.
"In the future, I plan on taking more of an active role in the decisions I make ... although I am scared, I am ready to begin my jail sentence."
The celebrity news website TMZ.com said Mr Hutton picked Hilton up from her parents' home at 10.30pm (0530 GMT) yesterday, away from the glare of photographers waiting at the Lynwood prison.
He drove her to the Men's Central Jail in downtown Los Angeles, where she surrendered to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. From there, she was driven to Lynwood.
Hilton's spokesman, Elliot Mintz, declined to comment, saying he was awaiting word from the sheriff's department. A sheriff's official would not confirm whether the heiress had begun her sentence.
She had until tomorrow to turn herself in and begin the term, which was cut from 45 to 23 days under state sentencing guidelines.
Earlier yesterday evening, Hilton attended the MTV Movie Awards near Hollywood. In a red carpet interview with the music TV channel, she said she was "doing OK" but was "obviously a little scared right now".
She added that she hoped her time in prison would inspire other young people to think about their actions and make good decisions. "These last couple of weeks have been a lot of time for self-reflection on my life and realising what's important," she added.
Staff and agencies
Monday June 4, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
The socialite Paris Hilton has begun a jail sentence for violating her probation, her lawyer has said.
"Paris Hilton has turned herself in to begin serving her sentence for violating probation at a Los Angeles county jail located in Lynwood, California," Richard Hutton confirmed in a statement yesterday.
The statement quoted 26-year-old hotel heiress Hilton as saying: "This is an important point in my life, and I need to take responsibility for my actions.
"In the future, I plan on taking more of an active role in the decisions I make ... although I am scared, I am ready to begin my jail sentence."
The celebrity news website TMZ.com said Mr Hutton picked Hilton up from her parents' home at 10.30pm (0530 GMT) yesterday, away from the glare of photographers waiting at the Lynwood prison.
He drove her to the Men's Central Jail in downtown Los Angeles, where she surrendered to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. From there, she was driven to Lynwood.
Hilton's spokesman, Elliot Mintz, declined to comment, saying he was awaiting word from the sheriff's department. A sheriff's official would not confirm whether the heiress had begun her sentence.
She had until tomorrow to turn herself in and begin the term, which was cut from 45 to 23 days under state sentencing guidelines.
Earlier yesterday evening, Hilton attended the MTV Movie Awards near Hollywood. In a red carpet interview with the music TV channel, she said she was "doing OK" but was "obviously a little scared right now".
She added that she hoped her time in prison would inspire other young people to think about their actions and make good decisions. "These last couple of weeks have been a lot of time for self-reflection on my life and realising what's important," she added.
Prisoners given go ahead to sue over jail time
Prisoners given go ahead to sue over jail time
By Bonnie Malkin
Last Updated: 8:22am BST 04/06/2007
The Prison Service could be forced to pay prisoners tens of thousands of pounds in compensation for keeping them in jail after they are due for early release on parole.
The Court of Appeal has held that prisoners’ human rights are breached if they are kept in jail beyond the date on which they become eligible for parole. The judgement means the Prison Service could face claims for compensation for wrongful imprisonment if early release deadlines are missed and offenders are then released at a later parole hearing.
The Prison Service and the Prison Board are so concerned over the ruling they are planning to appeal to the Law Lords to overturn the decision. It is estimated between 500 and 700 prisoners each year miss their early release deadline because of hold-ups in the system.
The judgement was based on the case of Derrick Johnson, who was kept in jail for 8 1/2 months beyond the date he was eligible for parole, according to the Court of Appeal. In accordance with usual practice Johnson, who was sentenced to seven years for supplying drugs, was asked whether he wanted to apply for parole six months ahead of time.
He said yes, but there was a long delay in assembling his file. He was eligible for parole in June 2003 but the board didn’t hear his application until February 2004. The board then recommended his release.
Johnson’s solicitor, Tony Stokoe, said last night: “I and other prison lawyers are pleased that the Parole Board and Prison Service are going to have to account for missing deadlines.
“It is a matter that has been concerning us for a number of years. We believe there are many other people in a similar position.” Mr Stokoe said that the rule of thumb for compensation was £1,000 for the first month and £500 for each month that a prisoner was held beyond their parole date after that.
A Prison Service spokesperson said: “We are disappointed by this decision. We will give serious consideration as to whether an appeal to the House of Lords should be made.” A Parole Board spokesman admitted the judgement had “very wide implications”.
He said: “We would have to give prisoners a decision on parole by the date on which they are eligible and at the moment, often we don’t, usually because prisons have not provided the information on time.”
It also emerged last night that two prisoners are suing Lord Falconer, the Justice Secretary, over claims they are being arbitrarily held in breach of their human rights. They say jail overcrowding has meant they have not been able to undertake the programmes they need to persuade the parole board that they have addressed their offending behaviour and no longer pose a threat to the public.
The backlog is thought to affect 1,000 prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection, an initiative for violent and sex offenders implemented by David Blunkett when he was Home Secretary.
The challenge will add to Lord Falconer’s problems as ministers struggle to come up with solutions to the overcrowding crisis that is engulfing the country’s prisons. Prisoner numbers hit a record 80,486 last week.
By Bonnie Malkin
Last Updated: 8:22am BST 04/06/2007
The Prison Service could be forced to pay prisoners tens of thousands of pounds in compensation for keeping them in jail after they are due for early release on parole.
The Court of Appeal has held that prisoners’ human rights are breached if they are kept in jail beyond the date on which they become eligible for parole. The judgement means the Prison Service could face claims for compensation for wrongful imprisonment if early release deadlines are missed and offenders are then released at a later parole hearing.
The Prison Service and the Prison Board are so concerned over the ruling they are planning to appeal to the Law Lords to overturn the decision. It is estimated between 500 and 700 prisoners each year miss their early release deadline because of hold-ups in the system.
The judgement was based on the case of Derrick Johnson, who was kept in jail for 8 1/2 months beyond the date he was eligible for parole, according to the Court of Appeal. In accordance with usual practice Johnson, who was sentenced to seven years for supplying drugs, was asked whether he wanted to apply for parole six months ahead of time.
He said yes, but there was a long delay in assembling his file. He was eligible for parole in June 2003 but the board didn’t hear his application until February 2004. The board then recommended his release.
Johnson’s solicitor, Tony Stokoe, said last night: “I and other prison lawyers are pleased that the Parole Board and Prison Service are going to have to account for missing deadlines.
“It is a matter that has been concerning us for a number of years. We believe there are many other people in a similar position.” Mr Stokoe said that the rule of thumb for compensation was £1,000 for the first month and £500 for each month that a prisoner was held beyond their parole date after that.
A Prison Service spokesperson said: “We are disappointed by this decision. We will give serious consideration as to whether an appeal to the House of Lords should be made.” A Parole Board spokesman admitted the judgement had “very wide implications”.
He said: “We would have to give prisoners a decision on parole by the date on which they are eligible and at the moment, often we don’t, usually because prisons have not provided the information on time.”
It also emerged last night that two prisoners are suing Lord Falconer, the Justice Secretary, over claims they are being arbitrarily held in breach of their human rights. They say jail overcrowding has meant they have not been able to undertake the programmes they need to persuade the parole board that they have addressed their offending behaviour and no longer pose a threat to the public.
The backlog is thought to affect 1,000 prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection, an initiative for violent and sex offenders implemented by David Blunkett when he was Home Secretary.
The challenge will add to Lord Falconer’s problems as ministers struggle to come up with solutions to the overcrowding crisis that is engulfing the country’s prisons. Prisoner numbers hit a record 80,486 last week.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
If the McCanns want to raise awareness they should answer questions
I don't think having a Madeliene Day, a Madeliene pop concert and a Madeliene sports event will help matters.
A return to basics might. By that I mean subjecting the McCanns to proper questioning to get at the truth to what happened to the missing Maddeliene.
Anything else is pure distraction. And, it doesn't help matters when the majority of the media keeps repeating the false story of an abduction. The false story of checking on the kids every half hour.
A return to basics might. By that I mean subjecting the McCanns to proper questioning to get at the truth to what happened to the missing Maddeliene.
Anything else is pure distraction. And, it doesn't help matters when the majority of the media keeps repeating the false story of an abduction. The false story of checking on the kids every half hour.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Computer problems.
My computer went down about half 2 yesterday afternoon and I have had to take it to a geek friend to have a look at it. Meanwhile, I am at a cyber cafe.
Normal service will resume as soon as possible.
Normal service will resume as soon as possible.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Rethink use of restraint on young offenders, urges coroner
Rethink use of restraint on young offenders, urges coroner
· Youth, 14, hanged himself at secure unit
· Jury was not given full facts, claims mother
Eric Allison and Martin Wainwright
Friday June 1, 2007
The Guardian
A coroner called yesterday for an urgent review of the use of restraint on young offenders after a jury returned a suicide verdict on a vulnerable 14-year-old who hanged himself with his shoelaces at a privately-run secure unit.
Adam Rickwood was the youngest person to die in custody in Britain for more than 50 years when he took his life after begging his mother to get him moved from the centre at Consett, Co Durham, where he had been for less than a month.
A four-week inquest heard that the boy had been forcibly restrained by four staff shortly before his death three years ago, and a controversial technique designed to cause brief but sharp pain by twisting and squeezing the nose had been used to force him to go to his room.
A few hours later, a care officer found the body of the boy, who had threatened to kill himself in letters home and was known to have mental health problems with suicidal tendencies.
The jury of nine women and one man at Chester-le-Street coroner's court exonerated care staff at Hassockfield secure training centre, run by the prison specialist company Serco. They reached a nine-one majority verdict after four days' deliberation.
The coroner, Andrew Tweddle, had asked the jury to consider 11 questions, including whether the centre, 150 miles from Adam's home in Burnley, was the right place for him, and whether staff had acted appropriately in the run-up to his death. The jury replied yes to both, but found that Lancashire social services should have done more to get details of the boy's vulnerability to the Youth Justice Board before the decision to pick Hassockfield was made.
The findings were criticised by Adam's mother, Carol Pounder. She said after the hearing: "I am disgusted at not having a full inquiry into the death of a very vulnerable child, my only son. The jury was not given the whole of the evidence relating to his death.
"What gives anyone the right to allow four men, weighing 58 stone between them, to restrain a 14-year-old boy, cause him pain and injure his nose for refusing to go to his room? If that had happened at home, I would have been charged."
The coroner took a stronger line than the jury's findings, expressing concern about the brief violence used to force Adam to comply.
He said: "There needs to be the most urgent and thorough investigation and review of the interrelationship between the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, secure training centre (STC) rules and the directors' rules (which apply to STC heads) to avoid any confusion of what applies where and when." Adam's death increased concern about uncertainty in the treatment of young people in custody. The campaign group Inquest called earlier this year for a detailed inquiry into the use of restraint in institutions housing young offenders.
Adam was sent to Hassockfield, one of three centres of its type in England, after being remanded on charges of wounding and taking a vehicle without consent.
The day before his death, he lost privileges, including a sound centre and TV in his room, after two cigarettes smuggled in by his mother were found in his trainers.
The family's solicitor, Mark Scott, said after the verdict: "The jury, Mrs Pounder and her family have been denied the opportunity to have a full inquiry into all points surrounding Adam's death."
The care officer who used the nose technique, Stephen Hodgson, told the inquest earlier: "There is no way I would hurt a child in our care, that's why I warned him twice. The manual says we are supposed to warn them once, but I did it twice."
Comment: I'm surprised that they did not simply put a bullring through his nose and drag him into the cell...
· Youth, 14, hanged himself at secure unit
· Jury was not given full facts, claims mother
Eric Allison and Martin Wainwright
Friday June 1, 2007
The Guardian
A coroner called yesterday for an urgent review of the use of restraint on young offenders after a jury returned a suicide verdict on a vulnerable 14-year-old who hanged himself with his shoelaces at a privately-run secure unit.
Adam Rickwood was the youngest person to die in custody in Britain for more than 50 years when he took his life after begging his mother to get him moved from the centre at Consett, Co Durham, where he had been for less than a month.
A four-week inquest heard that the boy had been forcibly restrained by four staff shortly before his death three years ago, and a controversial technique designed to cause brief but sharp pain by twisting and squeezing the nose had been used to force him to go to his room.
A few hours later, a care officer found the body of the boy, who had threatened to kill himself in letters home and was known to have mental health problems with suicidal tendencies.
The jury of nine women and one man at Chester-le-Street coroner's court exonerated care staff at Hassockfield secure training centre, run by the prison specialist company Serco. They reached a nine-one majority verdict after four days' deliberation.
The coroner, Andrew Tweddle, had asked the jury to consider 11 questions, including whether the centre, 150 miles from Adam's home in Burnley, was the right place for him, and whether staff had acted appropriately in the run-up to his death. The jury replied yes to both, but found that Lancashire social services should have done more to get details of the boy's vulnerability to the Youth Justice Board before the decision to pick Hassockfield was made.
The findings were criticised by Adam's mother, Carol Pounder. She said after the hearing: "I am disgusted at not having a full inquiry into the death of a very vulnerable child, my only son. The jury was not given the whole of the evidence relating to his death.
"What gives anyone the right to allow four men, weighing 58 stone between them, to restrain a 14-year-old boy, cause him pain and injure his nose for refusing to go to his room? If that had happened at home, I would have been charged."
The coroner took a stronger line than the jury's findings, expressing concern about the brief violence used to force Adam to comply.
He said: "There needs to be the most urgent and thorough investigation and review of the interrelationship between the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, secure training centre (STC) rules and the directors' rules (which apply to STC heads) to avoid any confusion of what applies where and when." Adam's death increased concern about uncertainty in the treatment of young people in custody. The campaign group Inquest called earlier this year for a detailed inquiry into the use of restraint in institutions housing young offenders.
Adam was sent to Hassockfield, one of three centres of its type in England, after being remanded on charges of wounding and taking a vehicle without consent.
The day before his death, he lost privileges, including a sound centre and TV in his room, after two cigarettes smuggled in by his mother were found in his trainers.
The family's solicitor, Mark Scott, said after the verdict: "The jury, Mrs Pounder and her family have been denied the opportunity to have a full inquiry into all points surrounding Adam's death."
The care officer who used the nose technique, Stephen Hodgson, told the inquest earlier: "There is no way I would hurt a child in our care, that's why I warned him twice. The manual says we are supposed to warn them once, but I did it twice."
Comment: I'm surprised that they did not simply put a bullring through his nose and drag him into the cell...
Paedophiles 'need treatment, not prison'
Paedophiles 'need treatment, not prison'
Staff and agencies
Friday June 1, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
"Viewing" paedophiles should be treated in the community rather than be sent to jail, the head of the national police child protection unit said today.
Jim Gamble, head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), said too many people were being convicted of child sex offences to be dealt with in the criminal justice system.
He proposed that lower risk offenders, such as those convicted of downloading abusive images of children, should receive a police caution and then be managed in the community.
"We shouldn't be sending everyone that ever commits an offence - particularly of the viewing kind - to prison," Mr Gamble told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Mr Gamble said he was not suggesting that paedophiles who committed violent offences, such as raping a child, should escape jail. But someone caught looking at child pornography who had not directly abused a child could be dealt with in a different way.
"[If] someone is at the beginning of the spiral of abuse, where there is evidence to indicate during the investigation that this person may well benefit from a police caution and be managed, then of course that needs to be done," Mr Gamble said.
The CEOP was set up last year to tackle child sex abuse in the UK, and the information flow on paedophilia since its launch has increased enormously.
Michele Elliott, director of children's charity Kidscape, said not jailing paedophiles because there was not enough room in the prison system for them was "crazy".
She said the proposal risked sending out the message to paedophiles that their crimes were not serious.
"I agree with him that these people need treatment, however to treat them in the community sends a message that what they have done is not very serious," Ms Elliott said.
"I believe that if you download child pornography, you are just as guilty as the people who are taking the photographs. You create a market because you want to view child pornography, therefore a child is abused for your pleasure. As far as I am concerned, that means prison."
Comment: Is Jim taking a gamble?
Police arrest man for drunk driving in wheelchair
Police arrest man for drunk driving in wheelchair
BERLIN (Reuters) - A wheelchair-bound German stunned police when they pulled him over for using the road and found he was 10 times over the legal alcohol limit for drivers.
"He was right in the middle of the road," said a spokesman for police in the northeastern city of Schwerin on Tuesday. "The officers couldn't quite believe it when they saw the results of the breath test. That's a life-threatening figure."
The 31-year-old told police he had been out drinking with a friend and was about 2 km from home when a squad car stopped him as he passed through the village of Ventschow.
Police said that because the man was technically travelling as a pedestrian, he could not be charged with a driving offence.
"It's not like we can impound his wheelchair," the spokesman said. "But he is facing some sort of punishment. It's just not clear yet what exactly that will be."
Hat-Tip to The Barrister Blog for finding this little gem.
BERLIN (Reuters) - A wheelchair-bound German stunned police when they pulled him over for using the road and found he was 10 times over the legal alcohol limit for drivers.
"He was right in the middle of the road," said a spokesman for police in the northeastern city of Schwerin on Tuesday. "The officers couldn't quite believe it when they saw the results of the breath test. That's a life-threatening figure."
The 31-year-old told police he had been out drinking with a friend and was about 2 km from home when a squad car stopped him as he passed through the village of Ventschow.
Police said that because the man was technically travelling as a pedestrian, he could not be charged with a driving offence.
"It's not like we can impound his wheelchair," the spokesman said. "But he is facing some sort of punishment. It's just not clear yet what exactly that will be."
Hat-Tip to The Barrister Blog for finding this little gem.
Tory blogs, politics, and Question Time
I was quite interested by an exchange on 18DS last night between Phil Hendren (Dizzy Thinks) blog and presenter Iain Dale (Iain Dale's Diary) blog. Someone had emailed in and asked what Phil Hendren's blog was about. Iain Dale gave him 30 seconds to give his sales pitch. Several valuable seconds were wasted as Phil Hendren appeared to be rendered speechless by the simple question, and he had to think about it. Pregnant pause over, he must have thought he was Harold Pinter writing a play, when all that was required was for him to depress the mental play button and put his brain into gear. It was hardly a great advert for Dizzy Thinks. Desperately, he offered "opinionated arrogance". Duh! That's the header on your blog stupid! He might have been better stating politics and government. In any event, the exchange which got my attention most was that both Phil Hendren and Iain Dale were claiming the crown for being the most arrogant. Hardly a title which I would fight either of them for, because it is not the most flattering of labels I can think of. Iain Dale already has the titles of being a liar and a hypocrite to contend with, perhaps we should leave the pretender to the throne with the arrogant title?
Even imbeciles think, so I won't go as far as saying Phil Hendren (Dizzy Thinks) doesn't think. However, I do believe that his thinking skills are being overrated in the blogosphere. I say this because Phil Hendren gave the game away last night by stating how he cobbles his posts together. Some analogies spring to mind, he is like a vulture hovering overhead and swooping down to pick over a carcass to see what others have left. A parasite bloodsucking away at a story. One of his sources is Hansard, another is the BBC.
Ironically, Steve Richards (The Independent) also a guest on Vox Politix and a former employee at the BBC, described how the BBC News at Ten team scoured the leaders of the mainstream media and blogs like Iain Dale's and Dizzy Thinks for its stories to feature. They all seem to feed off each other. Whilst Iain Dale stated that in his opinion Dizzy Thinks is a rising star, Julian Glover (The Guardian) opined that Guido had now become a spent force.
When the programme dipped a bit, I popped off to watch Question Time where four out of the five panelists happened to be ex-Grammar school wallahs. And, of course, the should there be more grammar schools question came up. The Tory MP Caroline Spellman made a complete hash of putting forward David Cameron's argument, luckily for her that Roy Hattersley came and bailed her out and gained the applause from the audience. Iain Dale, who is basically a gossip columnist akin to Marjorie Proops, wanted to stoke the fires a bit on this issue but bottled out. Given that David Cameron, in effect, sacked Graham Brady this is probably a wise move. Iain Dale likes to see himself as a mover and shaker within the Tory Party. Recently, there has been quite a few Tory bloggers speaking out which way the Tory Party should be going. It may be that this will lessen now that the Tory Party has appointed its own media person Andy Coulson to move and shake things. I seem to recall Margaret Thatcher once saying words to the effect that that there is no society but a collection of individuals. This reminds me of the Tory Party. It's not a party at all, but a collection of self-serving individuals. We will just have to see if David Cameron (not ex-grammar school) is up shit creek without a paddle on this one.
Even imbeciles think, so I won't go as far as saying Phil Hendren (Dizzy Thinks) doesn't think. However, I do believe that his thinking skills are being overrated in the blogosphere. I say this because Phil Hendren gave the game away last night by stating how he cobbles his posts together. Some analogies spring to mind, he is like a vulture hovering overhead and swooping down to pick over a carcass to see what others have left. A parasite bloodsucking away at a story. One of his sources is Hansard, another is the BBC.
Ironically, Steve Richards (The Independent) also a guest on Vox Politix and a former employee at the BBC, described how the BBC News at Ten team scoured the leaders of the mainstream media and blogs like Iain Dale's and Dizzy Thinks for its stories to feature. They all seem to feed off each other. Whilst Iain Dale stated that in his opinion Dizzy Thinks is a rising star, Julian Glover (The Guardian) opined that Guido had now become a spent force.
When the programme dipped a bit, I popped off to watch Question Time where four out of the five panelists happened to be ex-Grammar school wallahs. And, of course, the should there be more grammar schools question came up. The Tory MP Caroline Spellman made a complete hash of putting forward David Cameron's argument, luckily for her that Roy Hattersley came and bailed her out and gained the applause from the audience. Iain Dale, who is basically a gossip columnist akin to Marjorie Proops, wanted to stoke the fires a bit on this issue but bottled out. Given that David Cameron, in effect, sacked Graham Brady this is probably a wise move. Iain Dale likes to see himself as a mover and shaker within the Tory Party. Recently, there has been quite a few Tory bloggers speaking out which way the Tory Party should be going. It may be that this will lessen now that the Tory Party has appointed its own media person Andy Coulson to move and shake things. I seem to recall Margaret Thatcher once saying words to the effect that that there is no society but a collection of individuals. This reminds me of the Tory Party. It's not a party at all, but a collection of self-serving individuals. We will just have to see if David Cameron (not ex-grammar school) is up shit creek without a paddle on this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)