George W Bush is a terrorist and should be impeached
The BBC may be congratulating itself on its Matt Frei interview with George W Bush, parts of which were shown last night on both BBC 1 10 O'Clock News and BBC 2 Newsnight. However, I smell a rat and it stinks to high heaven. Matt Frei was feeding lines to George W Bush like a comedy double act and George W Bush delivered the punchlines from a pre-arranged script. Only it wasn't funny. He was being given the opportunity at the TV Licence payers expense to get his message across. It was pure propaganda. People may remember it was not that long ago, under Margaret Thatcher, that members of Sinn Féin/IRA being interviewed would have their voices over dubbed by the voices of actors. Admittedly, at the time, I thought that this was a pointless exercise. But, the point I am making is that Sinn Féin/IRA were deemed to be terrorists. George W Bush claims to be fighting a war against terrorists. And yet, since 9/11, he has been acting like a terrorist himself. In my view, George W Bush should be impeached. The BBC should not be touching him with a barge pole let alone giving him the air time to pollute people with his garbage.
The BBC interview lasted just over 15 minutes and I have provided a link to it below. Fast forward it to 11 minutes and 39 seconds. Firstly, there is something wrong with the American Constitution if it gives a mad man like George W Bush the power "to veto a bill passed by the US Senate outlawing the interrogation technique of water-boarding". Let us make no mistake water-boarding is a form of torture, and torture is against the law in America. Matt Frei did not conduct a balanced interview and the BBC did not provide a balanced report, George W Bush's answers went unchallenged. There should be an inquiry into the BBC's conduct.
George W Bush stated that "Whatever we do will be legal". Torture is not legal, waterboarding is torture, it is not legal. There is an obvious conflict in what George W Bush is stating and yet the BBC let this go unchallenged. In fact, George W Bush used the term legal or law 7 times to describe what his regime will do. However, in an attempt to justify his breaking the law, he first blamed the American people for wanting effective measures for dealing with terrorists. So, his answer to them and the rest of the world is only by breaking the law can the American government be effective against terrorism and terrorists. This is like Dwain Chambers stating only those who illegally take dope can win Olympic medals. That makes it alright then does it? And, terrorists state that only by breaking the law can they achieve their aims. This means that there is no difference between what the terrorists advocate and what George W Bush advocates, therefore he is a terrorist. He is putting himself and his government above the law or outside of the law whichever way you choose to look at it it is not within the law. What George W Bush is stating when he says "When we within the law interrogate", he is really saying because we are in power we can use torture and that makes it legal. I beg to differ. This is a classic abuse of power and not use of power. This is like Hitler saying we can gas 6,000,000 jews etc because we are in power and that allows us to do whatever we like to push through our policy of effectively achieving the Master Race. As long as it was happening to a sub human species the Germans, like Americans, buried their heads in the sand. The Bush regime first dehumanised the terrorists and those they suspected of terrorist activity to justify their treatment of them. The kidnapping of foreign nationals and detaining them without charge and trial for years on end in Guantánamo Bay is unlawful. To add insult to injury these people were physically and psychologically tortured by the Bush regime.
"And we get information that protects ourselves and possibly other nations". But, America isn't being attacked and hasn't been attacked since 9/11. So, its alright to torture possibly innocent people until they confess to whatever charges the interrogators put to them? Who wouldn't say whatever to end the torture? This does not make them guilty of anything. His answer to his critics "Which attack would they hope we hadn't prevented". Climate of fear. This is a weapon of terrorists. Here it is being employed by the Bush regime. "So, the United States will act within the law". The problem is that the United States is not acting within the law on this issue. Wake up and smell the coffee. "We'll make sure the professionals have the necessary tools to do the job within the law". The Bush regime uses the CIA and Military (professionals), in effect, get on with the job, we don't care how you do it we just want results and we won't question your methods. This is called administrative convenience, and often it comes into conflict with the law. What Bush is doing is employing the broken record technique. If he repeats the saying within the law enough times he hopes that the American people will become hypnotised into believing what he is saying is the truth. Have they already forgotten Richard Milhouse Nixon and Watergate. Would they buy a used car from him? So, why are they buying George W Bush's Terrorgate? He claims that he is "sending a signal that America is going to respect the law". That's not the signal I am picking up on this side of the Atlantic George. Your language says this but your actions are the complete opposite. That makes you both a liar and a hypocrite. Moreover, it makes you dangerous and you should be removed from office. "We'll make decisions based upon law". Ok George, I'm a lawyer of sorts, you've made a decision to torture people whom you suspect of terrorist activity, can you now point to the place in your law books that states torture is legal in the States? "There's people in Guantánamo that need to be tried and will be tried". So, after 5,6,7 years you've reached this decision. Have you not heard of the legal principle 'justice delayed is justice denied'? And, there is such a thing as due process and this includes a fair trial. Not the torturing of suspects, and then putting them before a kangaroo court to create the impression that you are acting within the law.
When someone shakes their head they are indicating a negative, saying "no" to a question. George Bush did this when he said "yes" he believed that America held the high moral ground. There is no moral high ground in this swamp of immoral and illegal activity. George you are not wearing a suit of green, you're as naked as the day you were born.
BBC interview with George W Bush.
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
Friday, February 15, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
9 million less 1 bicycle now in Beijing
9 million less 1 bicycle now in Beijing
Hu Jintao, President of the People's Republic of China, feeling somewhat alienated by the Western World for his appalling human rights record, and after being snubbed by Steven Spielberg.
E.T. He recently tried to phone home but found that his call was blocked by the Great Firewall of China.
Hu Jintao, President of the People's Republic of China, feeling somewhat alienated by the Western World for his appalling human rights record, and after being snubbed by Steven Spielberg.
E.T. He recently tried to phone home but found that his call was blocked by the Great Firewall of China.
Kate McCann is missing: Has she been abducted?
Kate McCann is missing: Has she been abducted?
I am somewhat disappointed that Kate McCann has not been nominated for Celebrity Mum of the Year.
I am somewhat disappointed that Kate McCann has not been nominated for Celebrity Mum of the Year.
Police brutality
Police brutality
Is this fat pig a psychopath or what?
Local News Report.
Read what people are saying about the incident.
Hat-Tip to Tim Ireland at Bloggerheads
Is this fat pig a psychopath or what?
Local News Report.
Read what people are saying about the incident.
Hat-Tip to Tim Ireland at Bloggerheads
Tory MP manages to wriggle off the hook
Tory MP manages to wriggle off the hook
The police have decided not to prosecute the Tory MP for allegedly assaulting his children. It sounds like a done deal to me. I should hope that the pay off does not go down as expenses in relation to his job?
Nigel Waterson Cleared
Iain Dale 11:58 AM
Nigel Waterson MP has just issued this statement...
"The Police have now informed me that they are taking no further action in respect of the incident on 27th January. This is a relief but no surprise - I had done nothing wrong and assaulted no-one. I have not been charged with anything. We are especially grateful to all those friends and colleagues who have expressed their support. We have been very touched. My family and I have been victims of heavy-handed policing and gross media intrusion. Both matters are now the subject of official complaints to the Metropolitan Police and to the Press Complaints Commission. I would ask for no further intrusion into our private family life. I shall be making no further comment on these matters".
The police have decided not to prosecute the Tory MP for allegedly assaulting his children. It sounds like a done deal to me. I should hope that the pay off does not go down as expenses in relation to his job?
Nigel Waterson Cleared
Iain Dale 11:58 AM
Nigel Waterson MP has just issued this statement...
"The Police have now informed me that they are taking no further action in respect of the incident on 27th January. This is a relief but no surprise - I had done nothing wrong and assaulted no-one. I have not been charged with anything. We are especially grateful to all those friends and colleagues who have expressed their support. We have been very touched. My family and I have been victims of heavy-handed policing and gross media intrusion. Both matters are now the subject of official complaints to the Metropolitan Police and to the Press Complaints Commission. I would ask for no further intrusion into our private family life. I shall be making no further comment on these matters".
Why its so tough being a backbench MP
Why its so tough being a backbench MP
So, the first backbench MP says to the second backbench MP do you think we should go on a fact finding mission to discover whether the Costa del Sol makes a beautiful holiday destination?
So, the first backbench MP says to the second backbench MP do you think we should go on a fact finding mission to discover whether the Costa del Sol makes a beautiful holiday destination?
Have you heard the one about the two QCs who are suing the Law Society?
Have you heard the one about the two QCs who are suing the Law Society?
It's no joke as Joshua Rozenberg explains.
It's no joke as Joshua Rozenberg explains.
Derek Conway still has his snout in the trough
Derek Conway still has his snout in the trough
How can MPs expect the public to have confidence in the system which allows the disgraced Tory MP Derek Conway, who stole money from the taxpayer to fund his childrens private school education, to retain his position on the chairmen's panel which oversees parliamentary proceedings and be paid a £13,000 a year bonus? The position requires a degree of trust and respect for upholding the rules and procedures of Parliament, which we know Derek Conway has already broken on a very large scale. This is like putting Ronnie Biggs in charge of a mail train transporting £2.6M.
Watch out there's a thief about...
Pressure grows on Martin to get tough over expenses
This is beginning to look like Fagin's den. It is time that the convention stating that the Speaker of the House of Commons can go on as long as she or he likes ended. Michael Martin has taken on the appearance of the Artful Dodger. He has been trusted to set up an inquiry into whether MPs are picking the pockets of the public. The inquiry team are themselves pickpockets. Someone who is part of the problem not the solution cannot sensibly remain in office.
How can MPs expect the public to have confidence in the system which allows the disgraced Tory MP Derek Conway, who stole money from the taxpayer to fund his childrens private school education, to retain his position on the chairmen's panel which oversees parliamentary proceedings and be paid a £13,000 a year bonus? The position requires a degree of trust and respect for upholding the rules and procedures of Parliament, which we know Derek Conway has already broken on a very large scale. This is like putting Ronnie Biggs in charge of a mail train transporting £2.6M.
Watch out there's a thief about...
Pressure grows on Martin to get tough over expenses
This is beginning to look like Fagin's den. It is time that the convention stating that the Speaker of the House of Commons can go on as long as she or he likes ended. Michael Martin has taken on the appearance of the Artful Dodger. He has been trusted to set up an inquiry into whether MPs are picking the pockets of the public. The inquiry team are themselves pickpockets. Someone who is part of the problem not the solution cannot sensibly remain in office.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Iain Dale on the green loses out to an 8 year old boy
Iain Dale on the green loses out to an 8 year old boy
This is enough to turn Iain Dale green with envy, an 8 year old boy knocks spots off him playing golf.
This is enough to turn Iain Dale green with envy, an 8 year old boy knocks spots off him playing golf.
Super Wednesday
Super Wednesday
Della Georgeson who is John Prescott's Chief of Staff is the front runner to replace John Prescott in the nomination to become Labour MP for East Hull. See the BBC 1 Look North report here.
This is turning out to be a bigger show than Super Tuesday in the States which was something of a damp squib and Tory blogger Iain Dale attended. Iain Dale is the former Chief of Staff to David Davis in his campaign to become leader of the Tory Party. As we know, David Cameron won. Iain Dale has twice failed to get selected for a safe Tory seat.
In case anybody is wondering, Della Georgeson is a woman and not the back end of a election battle bus.
Della Georgeson who is John Prescott's Chief of Staff is the front runner to replace John Prescott in the nomination to become Labour MP for East Hull. See the BBC 1 Look North report here.
This is turning out to be a bigger show than Super Tuesday in the States which was something of a damp squib and Tory blogger Iain Dale attended. Iain Dale is the former Chief of Staff to David Davis in his campaign to become leader of the Tory Party. As we know, David Cameron won. Iain Dale has twice failed to get selected for a safe Tory seat.
In case anybody is wondering, Della Georgeson is a woman and not the back end of a election battle bus.
Students 'intoxicated' by terror freed on appeal
Students 'intoxicated' by terror freed on appeal
"Five young men, including four students, jailed on terror charges after being "intoxicated" by extremist propaganda have been freed by the Court of Appeal".
This whole war on terror is turning out to be a comedy of errors.
"Five young men, including four students, jailed on terror charges after being "intoxicated" by extremist propaganda have been freed by the Court of Appeal".
This whole war on terror is turning out to be a comedy of errors.
Minister of Fuzzy Statements
Minister of Fuzzy Statements
Well, I do declare that Jack Straw, formally known as the Minister of Justice, shall from this point on be referred to as the Minister of Fuzzy Statements. Any student of law will know that a right does not exist unless it is legally enforceable. Jack Straw, who is a qualified lawyer, will surely remember this principle from his student days. And if he doesn't, then the senile old fool should not be in the job. Therefore, it beggars belief that he is seeking to cobble together a Bill of (Unenforceable) Rights and Responsibilities. According to Jack Straw: "A Bill of Rights and Responsibilities could give people a clearer idea of what we can expect from the state and from each other, and provide an ethical framework for giving practical effect to our common values". Nothing creates greater uncertainty than being told that you have a right but you cannot legally enforce it. That is not a right; that is a wrong. What we can expect from the state and from A.N. Other, is two fingers when it comes down to trying to enforce a legitimate expectation. There is nothing ethical about this at all. In fact, it is highly unethical. It will not foster responsibility from the state, that is why the state is seeking a get out clause to allow it to be irresponsible. This shambles has the clarity of Mumbles Brown. Whenever I hear him talk about British Values, it comes across as British Walruses.
Are these British Walruses?
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
The World Upside Down
The World Upside Down
Whilst on a recent holiday to Australia, the TV personality Paul O'Grady was mistaken for the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, by an Aboriginal elder Matilda House, who asked him if she could open the new parliamentary term. Mr O'Grady, formerly known as Lily Savage before his sex change, stared back at the Aborigine with a Blankety Blank expression on his face.
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd
Whilst on a recent holiday to Australia, the TV personality Paul O'Grady was mistaken for the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, by an Aboriginal elder Matilda House, who asked him if she could open the new parliamentary term. Mr O'Grady, formerly known as Lily Savage before his sex change, stared back at the Aborigine with a Blankety Blank expression on his face.
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd
Right Honourable rogues
Right Honourable rogues
The foreign secretary, David Miliband, cut his way through the jungle before arriving at Westminister Village inhabited by the Allmpsarecrooks tribe. He is leading a civilian surge for democracy. "Among a string of practical proposals to support democracy, the foreign secretary will suggest:
· encouraging economic openness as a means of tackling corruption and increasing transparency" within the Houses of Parliament. Paying particular attention to why this strange tribe refer to themselves as being Right Honourable members when any fool can see that there is nothing honourable about fiddling expenses.
In the distance David Miliband can just visibly see the moral high ground but reaching it would require draining the swamp and cleaning away the sewer rats which infest the Houses of Parliament. This is because they spread corruption and David Milliband is seeking to spread democracy in darkest Britain.
The foreign secretary, David Miliband, cut his way through the jungle before arriving at Westminister Village inhabited by the Allmpsarecrooks tribe. He is leading a civilian surge for democracy. "Among a string of practical proposals to support democracy, the foreign secretary will suggest:
· encouraging economic openness as a means of tackling corruption and increasing transparency" within the Houses of Parliament. Paying particular attention to why this strange tribe refer to themselves as being Right Honourable members when any fool can see that there is nothing honourable about fiddling expenses.
In the distance David Miliband can just visibly see the moral high ground but reaching it would require draining the swamp and cleaning away the sewer rats which infest the Houses of Parliament. This is because they spread corruption and David Milliband is seeking to spread democracy in darkest Britain.
Florida lawyer charged over handshake
Florida lawyer charged over handshake
"A lawyer has been charged with assault after shaking hands with the prosecuting counsel so hard that she allegedly almost ripped her arm from its socket".
Definitely not one of the funny handshake brigade!
"A lawyer has been charged with assault after shaking hands with the prosecuting counsel so hard that she allegedly almost ripped her arm from its socket".
Definitely not one of the funny handshake brigade!
US accused of using 'kangaroo court' to try men accused of role in September 11 attacks
US accused of using 'kangaroo court' to try men accused of role in September 11 attacks
"The United States military announced yesterday that it was bringing death penalty charges against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five other men suspected of orchestrating the September 11 attacks, and intended to try them under the Bush administration's much-criticised military tribunal system, which is subject only to partial oversight by the civilian appeals system".
"The United States military announced yesterday that it was bringing death penalty charges against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five other men suspected of orchestrating the September 11 attacks, and intended to try them under the Bush administration's much-criticised military tribunal system, which is subject only to partial oversight by the civilian appeals system".
One-legged gold digger in search for gold
One-legged gold digger in search for gold
I was at a friend's house last night and Heather Mills became the topic of conversation. My friend opined that she thought Heather Mills is mentally unbalanced. Having seen this video, which she made and took into court yesterday, in a bid to claim that her marriage has been wrecked by the paparazzi, I would tend to agree with my friend.
I was at a friend's house last night and Heather Mills became the topic of conversation. My friend opined that she thought Heather Mills is mentally unbalanced. Having seen this video, which she made and took into court yesterday, in a bid to claim that her marriage has been wrecked by the paparazzi, I would tend to agree with my friend.
Children caught cheating in school for MPs?
Children caught cheating in school for MPs?
Perhaps, these children were learning how to become MPs when they grow up?
Perhaps, these children were learning how to become MPs when they grow up?
Monday, February 11, 2008
Number of rapists who escape jail doubles
Number of rapists who escape jail doubles
I think that this headline is a classic example of media hype. It fails to take into account that the definition of what constitutes rape has been widened. For example, a 15 year old girl allowing her 16 year old boyfriend intercourse would now constitute rape. However, this type of crime is not in the same league as a man leaping out of the bushes and forcing himself upon an unsuspecting female passerby.
It also fails to take into account that each case has to be treated upon its own merit on a case by case basis. The mere mention of the word rape should not get us screaming "lock 'em up and throw away the key". I don't think that 803 custodial sentences out of 862 comes under an "only" this amount went to prison. It is a very high proportion of the total. The "only" should refer to the 59 who did not get custodial sentences. The fact that community sentences, conditional and absolute discharges were applied would tend to indicate that these cases did not fall into the serious category of rape where a lengthy custodial sentence was required.
Whilst the government is actively seeking to reduce the severe prison overcrowding, I do not believe that vulnerable women are being put at greater risk as this article is implying.
I think that this headline is a classic example of media hype. It fails to take into account that the definition of what constitutes rape has been widened. For example, a 15 year old girl allowing her 16 year old boyfriend intercourse would now constitute rape. However, this type of crime is not in the same league as a man leaping out of the bushes and forcing himself upon an unsuspecting female passerby.
It also fails to take into account that each case has to be treated upon its own merit on a case by case basis. The mere mention of the word rape should not get us screaming "lock 'em up and throw away the key". I don't think that 803 custodial sentences out of 862 comes under an "only" this amount went to prison. It is a very high proportion of the total. The "only" should refer to the 59 who did not get custodial sentences. The fact that community sentences, conditional and absolute discharges were applied would tend to indicate that these cases did not fall into the serious category of rape where a lengthy custodial sentence was required.
Whilst the government is actively seeking to reduce the severe prison overcrowding, I do not believe that vulnerable women are being put at greater risk as this article is implying.
Crime in Westminister Village reaches all time high
Crime in Westminister Village reaches all time high
It looks suspiciously like blackmail to me, MPs are demanding a 33% pay rise on their basic £61,000 annual pay, to compensate them if rules are brought in to end the scam which allows them to claim up to £22,000 per year in additional costs allowance (ACA). No, this is not the Kray Twins in the East End in the 1960s. This is MPs today. It is claimed that they work for us. Filling their pockets out of the public purse is a strange way of working for us.
I think the first thing we need to do is remove the power for MPs to award themselves pay rises.
The second thing is to ensure that any expenses allowed are directly related to their work and that each penny claimed in expenses has to be accounted for.
It looks suspiciously like blackmail to me, MPs are demanding a 33% pay rise on their basic £61,000 annual pay, to compensate them if rules are brought in to end the scam which allows them to claim up to £22,000 per year in additional costs allowance (ACA). No, this is not the Kray Twins in the East End in the 1960s. This is MPs today. It is claimed that they work for us. Filling their pockets out of the public purse is a strange way of working for us.
I think the first thing we need to do is remove the power for MPs to award themselves pay rises.
The second thing is to ensure that any expenses allowed are directly related to their work and that each penny claimed in expenses has to be accounted for.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
What the Archbishop of Canterbury actually said
What the Archbishop of Canterbury actually said
BBC Interview - Radio 4 World at One
Thursday 07 February 2008
The transcript of an interview with Christopher Landau of the BBC World at One programme on the Temple lecture 'Civil and religious law in England: a religious perspective.'
CL: To begin with you've given this vision of if as a nation Britain wants to achieve social cohesion, that challenge is how to accommodate those of religious faith in relation to the law; and you're words are that the application of Sharia in certain circumstances if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples' religion seems unavoidable?
ABC: It seem unavoidable and indeed as a matter of fact certain provision of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law; so it's not as if we're bringing in an alien and rival system; we already have in this country a number of situations in which the law the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land as justified conscientious objections in certain circumstances in providing certain kinds of social relations, so I think we need to look at this with a clearer eye and not imagine either we know exactly what we mean by Sharia and not just associate it with what we read about Saudi Arabia or wherever.
CL: But I suppose Sharia does have this very clear image in peoples' minds whether it's stoning or what might happen to a woman who's been raped; these are big hurdles to overcome if you're trying to rehabilitate Sharia.
ABC: What a lot of Muslim scholars would say, I think, and I'm no expert on this, is that Sharia is a method rather than a code of law and that where it's codified in some of the ways that you've mentioned in very brutal and inhuman and unjust ways, that's one particular expression of it which is historically conditioned, not at all what people would want to see as part of the method of trying to make actual the will of God in certain circumstances. So there's a lot of internal debate within the Islamic community generally about the nature of Sharia and its extent; nobody in their right mind I think would want to see in this country a kind of inhumanity that sometimes appears to be associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well.
CL: I suppose more often than not, that is what Sharia is equated with, is it not?
ABC: That's what it's associated with and I noted in the lecture that there are some Muslim scholars who say you can barely use the word Sharia because of what people associate with it, which for a practising Muslim is quite difficult because they don't see it in that light; and I think one of the points again that's come up very interestingly in recent discussion between Muslim and other legal theorists is the way in which take for example the role of women; in the original context of Islamic law, quite often provisions relating to women are more enlightened than others of their day; that you have to translate that into a setting where actually that whole area, the rights and liberties of women has moved on and the principle, the vision, that animates the Islamic legal provision needs broadening because of that.
CL: So for example one of the examples you give where Sharia might be applied is in relation to marriage; what would that look like; what would that mean for example a British Muslim woman suddenly given the choice to settle a dispute via a Sharia route as opposed to the existing British legal system?
ABC: It's very important hat you mention there the word 'choice'; I think it would be quite wrong to say that we could ever licence so to speak a system of law for some community which gave people no right of appeal, no way of exercising the rights that are guaranteed to them as citizens in general, so that a woman in such circumstances would have to know that she was not signing away for good and all; now this is a matter of detail that I don't know enough about the detail of the law in the Islamic law in this context; I'm simply saying that there are ways of looking at marital dispute for example within discussions that go on among some contemporary scholars which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them. In some cultural and religious settings they would seem more appropriate.
CL: Is part of the challenge that Sharia is regarded as it is? For example the European Court of Human rights says quite simply that it's view is that Islam, is that Sharia is incompatible with democracy and therefore it would be very difficult to see it incorporated in any meaningful way?
ABC: That's a pretty sweeping judgement and again I think it seems to me to suggest that the court is regarding Sharia as a single fixed entity and a great many Muslim jurists would now say that this is not how you need to see it; case by case within an overall framework of the principles laid down in the Quran and the Hadith. So I think there is a real question about how the discourse of human rights relates to traditional idioms of Islamic law; a real discussion, and there's a lot of literature about that, but I don't think we should instantly spring to the conclusion that the whole of that world of jurisprudence and practice is somehow monstrously incompatible with human rights simply because it doesn't immediately fit with how we understand it, and as I said earlier, it's not something that's absolutely peculiar to Islam. We have orthodox Jewish courts operating in this country legally and in a regulated way because there are modes of dispute resolution and customary provisions which apply there in the light of Talmud. It's not a new problem, not to mention the issues as I mentioned earlier the questions about how the consciences of Catholics Anglicans and others who have difficulty over issues like abortion are accommodated within the Law; so the whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways in which the law of the land pays respect to custom and community; that's already there.
CL: And your concern is that that is in some ways under threat; the ability of religious people to be true to their faith as well as true to their role as citizen in the secular state?
ABC: I think at the moment there's a great deal of confusion about this; a lot of what's been written whether it was about the Catholic church adoptions agencies last year, sometimes what's written about Jewish or Muslim communities; a lot of what's written suggests that the ideal situation is one in which there is one law and only one law for everybody; now that principle that there's one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a Western liberal democracy, but I think it's a misunderstanding to suppose that that means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and the law needs to take some account of that, so an approach to law which simply said, 'There is one law for everybody and that is all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or your allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts'. I think that's a bit of a danger.
CL: And that is why Sharia should have its place?
ABC: That is why there is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law as we already do with some kinds of aspects of other religious law.
CL: This comes in the context of very fraught debates about community cohesion. How is it achieved that Britain might move forward in that respect? How concerned are you about the state of that debate at the moment and how much do you agree with the statements by Bishop Nazir Ali about 'no go areas'?
ABC: We have got a fragmented society at the moment, internally fragmented, socially fragmented in our cities and fragmented between communities of different allegiance. Now I think that there would be a way of talking about the law being more positive about supporting religious communities that might be seen as deepening or worsening that fragmentation. I don't want to see that. I do want to see a proper way of talking about shared citizenship and that is a major theme of what I am saying in this lecture. Shared citizenship, whatever we say about religious allegiance we have to have that common ground and know what belongs there and I think when people have talked about mutual isolation of communities, about the 'silo' model of people as it were living together, sadly there are some communities where it looks as it is true. I think it is not at all the case that we have absolute mutual exclusion. I don't think it's the case that we have areas where the law of the land doesn't run, that would be completely a misleading way of looking at it. I've noted in the lecture that we are dealing usually with very law-abiding communities, but we have a lot of social suspicion, a lot of distance, a lot of cultural – not just religious – distance between communities and we just need to go on looking at how that shared citizenship comes through. Now, I think there are ways of doing that. For example in relation to our education system, ways of doing that in connection with local federations and networks of different communities working together for common objectives; like better bus services - as simple as that sometimes. Better infrastructure, addressing issues of common concern about security, about families and so on. Many ways in which that active citizenship can be promoted. So I don't think that recognising the integrity or independence - the depth of the reality of religious communities - is to ghettoize our future.
CL: Was the talk of 'no go areas' unhelpful you think in the context of this debate?
ABC: I think the phrase, because it echoed of the Northern Irish situation – places where the police couldn't go – that was what it triggered in many peoples' minds. I don't think that was at all what was intended. I don't think it was meant to point to what I call the 'silo' problem. The sense of communities not communicating with each other and that is a two way issue as well. As I said a couple of weeks ago many Muslims say that they feel bits of British society are 'no go' areas for them places that they can't go.
CL: And where does this debate get taken when society is trying to work out in a sense how much the wishes of a minority, or the perceived needs of a minority, might be accommodated? I suppose that another example in the public domain in the moment is to what extent should mosques be able to broadcast the call the prayer in Oxford, for example.
ABC: The Oxford case is actually quite a difficult one as we don't know yet what the requests are and planning applications are in process. It will be at least a year before anything concrete comes out there. Some people have suggested a compromise where on Friday it may be possible for the call to prayer to be broadcast. I think I would be very uneasy about licensing a regular daily call to prayer. It doesn't even happen in many Muslim environments. It becomes an iconic thing that some Muslims want to push because they want to be recognised and some people want to push it back on because their space is being invaded. I think we need a bit of an injection of common sense in a mixed community which will never be homogeneously Muslim about what's appropriate. A daily call to prayer doesn't seem to be appropriate in that sort of environment.
CL: In the end, do you think that some people might be surprised to hear that a Christian Archbishop is calling for greater consideration of the role of Islamic law?
ABC: People may be surprised but I hope that that surprise will be modified when they think about the general question of how the law and religious community, religious principle are best and fruitfully accommodated. What we don't want I think is either a stand-off where the law squares up to religious consciences over something like abortion or indeed by forcing a vote on some aspects of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in the commons as it were a secular discourse saying 'we have no room for conscientious objections'; we don't want that, we don't either I think want a situation where because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do, making them part of public process, people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes a way of intensifying oppression within a community and that happens; that happens. So how does the law engage critically and intelligently – the law of the land – with the custom, the imperatives, the principles of distinctive religious communities? It's a large question, much larger than the question about Islam and I think it's a question which the Church can quite reasonably be thinking about.
BBC Interview - Radio 4 World at One
Thursday 07 February 2008
The transcript of an interview with Christopher Landau of the BBC World at One programme on the Temple lecture 'Civil and religious law in England: a religious perspective.'
CL: To begin with you've given this vision of if as a nation Britain wants to achieve social cohesion, that challenge is how to accommodate those of religious faith in relation to the law; and you're words are that the application of Sharia in certain circumstances if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples' religion seems unavoidable?
ABC: It seem unavoidable and indeed as a matter of fact certain provision of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law; so it's not as if we're bringing in an alien and rival system; we already have in this country a number of situations in which the law the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land as justified conscientious objections in certain circumstances in providing certain kinds of social relations, so I think we need to look at this with a clearer eye and not imagine either we know exactly what we mean by Sharia and not just associate it with what we read about Saudi Arabia or wherever.
CL: But I suppose Sharia does have this very clear image in peoples' minds whether it's stoning or what might happen to a woman who's been raped; these are big hurdles to overcome if you're trying to rehabilitate Sharia.
ABC: What a lot of Muslim scholars would say, I think, and I'm no expert on this, is that Sharia is a method rather than a code of law and that where it's codified in some of the ways that you've mentioned in very brutal and inhuman and unjust ways, that's one particular expression of it which is historically conditioned, not at all what people would want to see as part of the method of trying to make actual the will of God in certain circumstances. So there's a lot of internal debate within the Islamic community generally about the nature of Sharia and its extent; nobody in their right mind I think would want to see in this country a kind of inhumanity that sometimes appears to be associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well.
CL: I suppose more often than not, that is what Sharia is equated with, is it not?
ABC: That's what it's associated with and I noted in the lecture that there are some Muslim scholars who say you can barely use the word Sharia because of what people associate with it, which for a practising Muslim is quite difficult because they don't see it in that light; and I think one of the points again that's come up very interestingly in recent discussion between Muslim and other legal theorists is the way in which take for example the role of women; in the original context of Islamic law, quite often provisions relating to women are more enlightened than others of their day; that you have to translate that into a setting where actually that whole area, the rights and liberties of women has moved on and the principle, the vision, that animates the Islamic legal provision needs broadening because of that.
CL: So for example one of the examples you give where Sharia might be applied is in relation to marriage; what would that look like; what would that mean for example a British Muslim woman suddenly given the choice to settle a dispute via a Sharia route as opposed to the existing British legal system?
ABC: It's very important hat you mention there the word 'choice'; I think it would be quite wrong to say that we could ever licence so to speak a system of law for some community which gave people no right of appeal, no way of exercising the rights that are guaranteed to them as citizens in general, so that a woman in such circumstances would have to know that she was not signing away for good and all; now this is a matter of detail that I don't know enough about the detail of the law in the Islamic law in this context; I'm simply saying that there are ways of looking at marital dispute for example within discussions that go on among some contemporary scholars which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them. In some cultural and religious settings they would seem more appropriate.
CL: Is part of the challenge that Sharia is regarded as it is? For example the European Court of Human rights says quite simply that it's view is that Islam, is that Sharia is incompatible with democracy and therefore it would be very difficult to see it incorporated in any meaningful way?
ABC: That's a pretty sweeping judgement and again I think it seems to me to suggest that the court is regarding Sharia as a single fixed entity and a great many Muslim jurists would now say that this is not how you need to see it; case by case within an overall framework of the principles laid down in the Quran and the Hadith. So I think there is a real question about how the discourse of human rights relates to traditional idioms of Islamic law; a real discussion, and there's a lot of literature about that, but I don't think we should instantly spring to the conclusion that the whole of that world of jurisprudence and practice is somehow monstrously incompatible with human rights simply because it doesn't immediately fit with how we understand it, and as I said earlier, it's not something that's absolutely peculiar to Islam. We have orthodox Jewish courts operating in this country legally and in a regulated way because there are modes of dispute resolution and customary provisions which apply there in the light of Talmud. It's not a new problem, not to mention the issues as I mentioned earlier the questions about how the consciences of Catholics Anglicans and others who have difficulty over issues like abortion are accommodated within the Law; so the whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways in which the law of the land pays respect to custom and community; that's already there.
CL: And your concern is that that is in some ways under threat; the ability of religious people to be true to their faith as well as true to their role as citizen in the secular state?
ABC: I think at the moment there's a great deal of confusion about this; a lot of what's been written whether it was about the Catholic church adoptions agencies last year, sometimes what's written about Jewish or Muslim communities; a lot of what's written suggests that the ideal situation is one in which there is one law and only one law for everybody; now that principle that there's one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a Western liberal democracy, but I think it's a misunderstanding to suppose that that means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and the law needs to take some account of that, so an approach to law which simply said, 'There is one law for everybody and that is all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or your allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts'. I think that's a bit of a danger.
CL: And that is why Sharia should have its place?
ABC: That is why there is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law as we already do with some kinds of aspects of other religious law.
CL: This comes in the context of very fraught debates about community cohesion. How is it achieved that Britain might move forward in that respect? How concerned are you about the state of that debate at the moment and how much do you agree with the statements by Bishop Nazir Ali about 'no go areas'?
ABC: We have got a fragmented society at the moment, internally fragmented, socially fragmented in our cities and fragmented between communities of different allegiance. Now I think that there would be a way of talking about the law being more positive about supporting religious communities that might be seen as deepening or worsening that fragmentation. I don't want to see that. I do want to see a proper way of talking about shared citizenship and that is a major theme of what I am saying in this lecture. Shared citizenship, whatever we say about religious allegiance we have to have that common ground and know what belongs there and I think when people have talked about mutual isolation of communities, about the 'silo' model of people as it were living together, sadly there are some communities where it looks as it is true. I think it is not at all the case that we have absolute mutual exclusion. I don't think it's the case that we have areas where the law of the land doesn't run, that would be completely a misleading way of looking at it. I've noted in the lecture that we are dealing usually with very law-abiding communities, but we have a lot of social suspicion, a lot of distance, a lot of cultural – not just religious – distance between communities and we just need to go on looking at how that shared citizenship comes through. Now, I think there are ways of doing that. For example in relation to our education system, ways of doing that in connection with local federations and networks of different communities working together for common objectives; like better bus services - as simple as that sometimes. Better infrastructure, addressing issues of common concern about security, about families and so on. Many ways in which that active citizenship can be promoted. So I don't think that recognising the integrity or independence - the depth of the reality of religious communities - is to ghettoize our future.
CL: Was the talk of 'no go areas' unhelpful you think in the context of this debate?
ABC: I think the phrase, because it echoed of the Northern Irish situation – places where the police couldn't go – that was what it triggered in many peoples' minds. I don't think that was at all what was intended. I don't think it was meant to point to what I call the 'silo' problem. The sense of communities not communicating with each other and that is a two way issue as well. As I said a couple of weeks ago many Muslims say that they feel bits of British society are 'no go' areas for them places that they can't go.
CL: And where does this debate get taken when society is trying to work out in a sense how much the wishes of a minority, or the perceived needs of a minority, might be accommodated? I suppose that another example in the public domain in the moment is to what extent should mosques be able to broadcast the call the prayer in Oxford, for example.
ABC: The Oxford case is actually quite a difficult one as we don't know yet what the requests are and planning applications are in process. It will be at least a year before anything concrete comes out there. Some people have suggested a compromise where on Friday it may be possible for the call to prayer to be broadcast. I think I would be very uneasy about licensing a regular daily call to prayer. It doesn't even happen in many Muslim environments. It becomes an iconic thing that some Muslims want to push because they want to be recognised and some people want to push it back on because their space is being invaded. I think we need a bit of an injection of common sense in a mixed community which will never be homogeneously Muslim about what's appropriate. A daily call to prayer doesn't seem to be appropriate in that sort of environment.
CL: In the end, do you think that some people might be surprised to hear that a Christian Archbishop is calling for greater consideration of the role of Islamic law?
ABC: People may be surprised but I hope that that surprise will be modified when they think about the general question of how the law and religious community, religious principle are best and fruitfully accommodated. What we don't want I think is either a stand-off where the law squares up to religious consciences over something like abortion or indeed by forcing a vote on some aspects of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in the commons as it were a secular discourse saying 'we have no room for conscientious objections'; we don't want that, we don't either I think want a situation where because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do, making them part of public process, people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes a way of intensifying oppression within a community and that happens; that happens. So how does the law engage critically and intelligently – the law of the land – with the custom, the imperatives, the principles of distinctive religious communities? It's a large question, much larger than the question about Islam and I think it's a question which the Church can quite reasonably be thinking about.
Tory blogger Iain Dale embroiled in £20,000 donation row
Tory blogger Iain Dale embroiled in £20,000 donation row
When I first read this article Davis embroiled in row over £20,000 donation, I was sure when Iain Dale started to throw mud around at Peter Hain that he had written that David Davis was whiter than white thanks to his contribution. There is a danger with being too smug. "During the last Conservative leadership election, my task, as David Davis's chief of staff, was to ensure that he didn't suffer any of the embarrassments which have afflicted Peter Hain".
It's good of Iain Dale to take credit for this cock up...
I think that these two little pigs are in the shit
When I first read this article Davis embroiled in row over £20,000 donation, I was sure when Iain Dale started to throw mud around at Peter Hain that he had written that David Davis was whiter than white thanks to his contribution. There is a danger with being too smug. "During the last Conservative leadership election, my task, as David Davis's chief of staff, was to ensure that he didn't suffer any of the embarrassments which have afflicted Peter Hain".
It's good of Iain Dale to take credit for this cock up...
I think that these two little pigs are in the shit
Conservative claims £20,000 to paint house and other sleaze
Conservative claims £20,000 to paint house and other sleaze
"A senior Conservative MP claimed more than £20,000 in housing expenses last year, explaining that he had to paint his property and remove moss from the garden".
"The rules also allow members to claim for television licences, council tax, parking permits, burglar alarms, security lighting, buildings insurance, maintenance, cleaners, furnishings and utility bills, as well as up to £400 on food a month. MPs do not have to declare publicly how the money is spent".
MP flown to Thailand by the taxpayer
"With first-class air travel, a suite in a five-star hotel and even elephant rides, their visit to Thailand has the hallmarks of the holiday of a lifetime.
But with the taxpayer picking up more than £3,000 of the bill, Barry Sheerman, the Labour MP for Huddersfield, and his wife, Pamela, were at the centre of a "junket" row yesterday as they sunned themselves in the Far East".
James Purnell's £20,000 tax trick
"JAMES PURNELL, a rising cabinet star, was plunged into a new row this weekend about MPs’ expenses over his ownership of two properties.
The controversy centres on a flat that he bought in London before becoming an MP and his Manchester constituency home, which he acquired several years later. He was able to claim thousands of pounds of MPs’ expenses on the London home and is accused of exploiting a tax loophole to avoid a huge bill on its sale".
Davis embroiled in row over £20,000 donation
"A senior member of David Cameron's Shadow Cabinet has been dragged into a fresh row over political funding after a Labour MP asked the elections watchdog to investigate a £20,000 contribution to his campaign team.
David Davis faces the prospect of an Electoral Commission inquiry over a substantial donation that passed through several hands and was declared by four people, including Derek Conway".
Will the one good apple in the otherwise barrel of rotten apples please raise his or her hand to be identified as the odd one out?
"A senior Conservative MP claimed more than £20,000 in housing expenses last year, explaining that he had to paint his property and remove moss from the garden".
"The rules also allow members to claim for television licences, council tax, parking permits, burglar alarms, security lighting, buildings insurance, maintenance, cleaners, furnishings and utility bills, as well as up to £400 on food a month. MPs do not have to declare publicly how the money is spent".
MP flown to Thailand by the taxpayer
"With first-class air travel, a suite in a five-star hotel and even elephant rides, their visit to Thailand has the hallmarks of the holiday of a lifetime.
But with the taxpayer picking up more than £3,000 of the bill, Barry Sheerman, the Labour MP for Huddersfield, and his wife, Pamela, were at the centre of a "junket" row yesterday as they sunned themselves in the Far East".
James Purnell's £20,000 tax trick
"JAMES PURNELL, a rising cabinet star, was plunged into a new row this weekend about MPs’ expenses over his ownership of two properties.
The controversy centres on a flat that he bought in London before becoming an MP and his Manchester constituency home, which he acquired several years later. He was able to claim thousands of pounds of MPs’ expenses on the London home and is accused of exploiting a tax loophole to avoid a huge bill on its sale".
Davis embroiled in row over £20,000 donation
"A senior member of David Cameron's Shadow Cabinet has been dragged into a fresh row over political funding after a Labour MP asked the elections watchdog to investigate a £20,000 contribution to his campaign team.
David Davis faces the prospect of an Electoral Commission inquiry over a substantial donation that passed through several hands and was declared by four people, including Derek Conway".
Will the one good apple in the otherwise barrel of rotten apples please raise his or her hand to be identified as the odd one out?
Guantánamo detainees said to face 9/11 trial
Guantánamo detainees said to face 9/11 trial
"US military prosecutors are putting the finishing touches to the first major case against Guantanamo Bay inmates suspected to have helped plot the September 11 attacks.
The charges are expected to involve six detainees currently held at the Cuban detention camp, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the former senior aide to Osama bin Laden, who claims to have been the main architect of the plot".
The phrase 'justice delayed is justice denied' springs to mind.
"US military prosecutors are putting the finishing touches to the first major case against Guantanamo Bay inmates suspected to have helped plot the September 11 attacks.
The charges are expected to involve six detainees currently held at the Cuban detention camp, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the former senior aide to Osama bin Laden, who claims to have been the main architect of the plot".
The phrase 'justice delayed is justice denied' springs to mind.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Secretary of State for buggers
Secretary of State for buggers
Jack Straw eavesdropping simultaneously on the 81,681 prison population
Jack Straw eavesdropping simultaneously on the 81,681 prison population
Lawyers forced to repay millions taken from sick miners’ compensation
Lawyers forced to repay millions taken from sick miners’ compensation
"Law firms that grew rich by exploiting sick miners are to be forced to repay tens of millions of pounds that they wrongly sliced from their clients’ compensation".
"Law firms that grew rich by exploiting sick miners are to be forced to repay tens of millions of pounds that they wrongly sliced from their clients’ compensation".
Barrister who spied on ex-wife is named
Barrister who spied on ex-wife is named
"A leading barrister whose identity was protected by the courts after he was convicted of harassing his ex-wife can be named today after two High Court judges overturned a gagging order".
With a criminal conviction, why is this man still a QC, part-time judge, and employed by the government as an adviser?
Thousands more prisoners may be freed early
Thousands more prisoners may be freed early
"The prison population has hit a record high and spare spaces in police cells are running out fast, prompting fears that ministers will have to release thousands more prisoners early to ease over-crowding".
Jails full as inmates reach record number
"Dozens of prisoners were housed in court cells this week after space ran out in prisons and police stations. The jail population in England and Wales reached a record 81,681 yesterday".
"The prison population has hit a record high and spare spaces in police cells are running out fast, prompting fears that ministers will have to release thousands more prisoners early to ease over-crowding".
Jails full as inmates reach record number
"Dozens of prisoners were housed in court cells this week after space ran out in prisons and police stations. The jail population in England and Wales reached a record 81,681 yesterday".
Hundreds of lawyers 'bugged on prison visits'
Hundreds of lawyers 'bugged on prison visits'
"The full scale of a nationwide policy to bug British jails can be disclosed today after a whistleblower revealed that hundreds of lawyers and prison visitors had been secretly recorded".
Such surveillance tactics only harm
"Electronic surveillance has run like a thread through this week's news, revealing a combination of ministerial ignorance and police high-handedness".
Is it ever justified to bug lawyers' conversations with clients?
"Hundreds of conversations at Woodhill Prison have been recorded secretly by police over the past six years, it has emerged".
Friday, February 08, 2008
Sharia comments trigger criticism
Sharia comments trigger criticism
"The Archbishop of Canterbury has come under fire after appearing to back the adoption of some aspects of Sharia law in the UK".
I was surprised upon hearing the Archbishop of Canturbury's interview, on Radio 4's The World At One, at how quiet and reasonable he sounded as he made his points. Compared to the loud noises made in the MSM and the blogosphere in response.
Dr Rowan Williams might be misguided in the points he makes. But, I did not hear him suggest that English law should be replaced with Islamic Sharia law. Rather he was suggesting that it could be tweaked to better accommodate Muslims.
Sharia law and the British legal system
"The Archbishop of Canterbury's desire to bring some aspects of Sharia law into the mainstream legal system is bound to prove controversial".
"The Archbishop of Canterbury has come under fire after appearing to back the adoption of some aspects of Sharia law in the UK".
I was surprised upon hearing the Archbishop of Canturbury's interview, on Radio 4's The World At One, at how quiet and reasonable he sounded as he made his points. Compared to the loud noises made in the MSM and the blogosphere in response.
Dr Rowan Williams might be misguided in the points he makes. But, I did not hear him suggest that English law should be replaced with Islamic Sharia law. Rather he was suggesting that it could be tweaked to better accommodate Muslims.
Sharia law and the British legal system
"The Archbishop of Canterbury's desire to bring some aspects of Sharia law into the mainstream legal system is bound to prove controversial".
Outcry over prisoners claiming student grants
Outcry over prisoners claiming student grants
"Prisoners have claimed at least £500,000 in student grants and loans for taking courses while in jail, it has been disclosed.
Ministers said the payments - usually made to help university students pay for food and rent - had been made because of a loophole in the student loans system".
Judge regrets jailing man in neighbour feud
"A judge has spoken of his "regret" at having to jail a pensioner for five years for firing a pistol at a neighbour's car after a long-running feud".
Man jailed for helping wife flee social services
"A father has been jailed for helping his pregnant wife flee abroad because she was terrified that social services would take her baby".
"Prisoners have claimed at least £500,000 in student grants and loans for taking courses while in jail, it has been disclosed.
Ministers said the payments - usually made to help university students pay for food and rent - had been made because of a loophole in the student loans system".
Judge regrets jailing man in neighbour feud
"A judge has spoken of his "regret" at having to jail a pensioner for five years for firing a pistol at a neighbour's car after a long-running feud".
Man jailed for helping wife flee social services
"A father has been jailed for helping his pregnant wife flee abroad because she was terrified that social services would take her baby".
Thursday, February 07, 2008
CIA admits waterboarding of terror suspects
CIA admits waterboarding of terror suspects
"It was a good day to bury bad news. As millions of Americans were glued to the most exciting presidential race in living memory, the Bush Administration admitted publicly for the first time that it had used the simulated drowning technique of waterboarding on terror suspects in its custody".
The torture tape fingering Bush as a war criminal
"It was a good day to bury bad news. As millions of Americans were glued to the most exciting presidential race in living memory, the Bush Administration admitted publicly for the first time that it had used the simulated drowning technique of waterboarding on terror suspects in its custody".
The torture tape fingering Bush as a war criminal
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
The House of Cads comes tumbling down
The House of Cads comes tumbling down
In the same way that the Home Secretary and now Minister of Justice packs the Parole Board to achieve the desired result in the House of Correction, the House of Corruption has followed suit. "A committee set up to review MPs' perks and expenses is dominated by establishment figures who oppose public scrutiny of their financial affairs or are tainted by allegations of "sleaze", it has been disclosed".
In the same way that the Home Secretary and now Minister of Justice packs the Parole Board to achieve the desired result in the House of Correction, the House of Corruption has followed suit. "A committee set up to review MPs' perks and expenses is dominated by establishment figures who oppose public scrutiny of their financial affairs or are tainted by allegations of "sleaze", it has been disclosed".
The Sloane Ranger rides again: Hi ho 30 pieces of silver away
The Sloane Ranger rides again: Hi ho 30 pieces of silver away
No longer able to live off the proceeds of crime, thanks to daddy getting his hands caught in the public purse, Henry Conway, is forced into having to earn a living.
Nice touch, not your bum darling, this PR fight back: "Henry Conway has requested that his fee for this article be donated to the Elton John Aids Foundation". That's a good cause, even if Derek Conway is a lost cause.
No longer able to live off the proceeds of crime, thanks to daddy getting his hands caught in the public purse, Henry Conway, is forced into having to earn a living.
Nice touch, not your bum darling, this PR fight back: "Henry Conway has requested that his fee for this article be donated to the Elton John Aids Foundation". That's a good cause, even if Derek Conway is a lost cause.
7 of 1 and 6 of the other
7 of 1 and 6 of the other
It has long been an established principle of English law that suspects in criminal trials are judged by a jury of 12 of our peers. That is, until now. If this man is unable to add up, would you want him sitting in the jury on your trial?
Never mind Dizzy Thinks, methinks he is all at sixes and sevens...
It has long been an established principle of English law that suspects in criminal trials are judged by a jury of 12 of our peers. That is, until now. If this man is unable to add up, would you want him sitting in the jury on your trial?
Never mind Dizzy Thinks, methinks he is all at sixes and sevens...
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Convicted barrister wins gagging order
Convicted barrister wins gagging order
"A barrister found guilty of a criminal offence has been granted anonymity by a court gagging order.
The eminent barrister, who was convicted of harassing a former partner, cannot be named by the media because children are involved in the case, the court ruled"...
"Naming the barrister would lead to some embarrassment but not physical harm to his children".
So, why the gagging order? Is this more evidence of the funny handshake brigade in action?
"A barrister found guilty of a criminal offence has been granted anonymity by a court gagging order.
The eminent barrister, who was convicted of harassing a former partner, cannot be named by the media because children are involved in the case, the court ruled"...
"Naming the barrister would lead to some embarrassment but not physical harm to his children".
So, why the gagging order? Is this more evidence of the funny handshake brigade in action?
Wanted by the police 'subversive' Muslim MP
Wanted by the police 'subversive' Muslim MP
Let me get this right. The Metropolitan Police are investigating the activities of a Muslim MP, Sadiq Khan, whom they claim is a 'subversive' and request, rather forcefully, that Thames Valley Police bug the conversation of this 'subversive' within the walls of a British penal establishment. Not once, but twice. On the first occasion, the Minister with legal responsibility for both the police and prisons was Charles Clarke MP. On the second occasion, the Minister with legal responsibility for both the police and prisons was John Reid MP. Yesterday, Jack Straw MP, Minister of Justice, and now responsible legally for prisons, issued a statement to the Commons, in which he claimed that no Minister was involved in the decision to bug Sadiq Khan MP, who now works for the Ministry of Justice. Why has Jack Straw misled Parliament?
According to section 1 of the Prison Act 1952:
"1 General control over prisons
All powers and jurisdiction in relation to prisons and prisoners which before the commencement of the Prison Act 1877 were exercisable by any other authority shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be exercisable by the Secretary of State".
If Jack Straw is saying that the Secretary of State is no longer responsible for what happens within our prisons, who is? Because the Prison Act states otherwise. Is Jack Straw stating that the Prison Act is wrong? Because, if he is, then it needs to be amended to reflect what he is now claiming is the present legal position. He has left this jailhouselawyer very confused.
Why is a man deemed to be a threat to national security working at the Ministry of Justice?
UPDATE: Officials in the Prison Service knew back in December 2007 and yet Jack Straw is still saying he only found out on last Saturday. Yeah, right, Jack, if you say so...
Monday, February 04, 2008
Who guards the guards? (3)
Who guards the guards? (3)
Some bloggers will be aware of the on/off running battle between Iain Dale and Tim Ireland. And that Iain Dale's Diary has recently had a face lift to try and improve its image. But, all that glitters is not gold. For example:
"Rules of Engagement
Iain Dale 2:19 PM
RULES ON COMMENTS
I welcome a healthy debate on this blog. It's what blogging is all about. Strongly worded comments are acceptable, but libellous ones are not. It is commonly thought that somehow bloggers operate outside the law of libel. This is an incorrect assumption. If I feel that any comment could be contrued as libellous I will not allow it through comment moderation.
Swearing is banned on this blog. If you use a swear word in your comment, again, it is liable to be deleted without explanation.
Anonymous posting is allowed, but if it is insulting to me or other people posting in the thread I reserve the right not to allow it through.
Please try to be as polite as possible. People seem to think that the internet can be used to say things to people which you wold (sic) never dream of saying to their face. Strong argument is welcomed, but please try to steer clear of personal insults where possible.
If any of these rules are continually transgressed I reserve the right to ban an individual from posting further comments.
In short, I reserve the right to delete any comment made on this blog with no explanation. This is a debating forum which I have created and if people do not like my rules they should feel free not to participate.
If you have suggestions for further rules of engagement, please feel free to leave them in the comments on this thread".
Now we have read the theory, let us see it in practice with this post and the comments here.
In particular, "...libellous ones are not. It is commonly thought that somehow bloggers operate outside the law of libel. This is an incorrect assumption. If I feel that any comment could be contrued as libellous I will not allow it through comment moderation". I recall Iain Dale stating on more than one occasion that he is not a lawyer. Therefore, how can he construe what is deemed as libellous? Perhaps, he should sell his new Audi and spend the money instead on seeking the legal advice from a libel lawyer (I don't mean that plonker Donal Blaney who is a tax lawyer and stepping into a minefield for his BNP chum Guido Fawkes/Paul Staines)?
It is arguable that I am a lawyer, like Donal Blaney, the laws of libel are not my specialist area. Nevertheless, I would construe this comment as a libel:
"Anonymous jus' passin' thru' said...
verity and geoff.
jailhouselawyer describes himself as a prison law consultant and presumably gets paid for his activities.
As he is in receipt of Benefits and is clearly not making himself available for work, he obviously needs a little help.
National Benefit Fraud Hotline:
0800 854 440
These people would love to help him towards his goal of rehabilitation into mainstream society.
Happy to Help.
February 04, 2008 4:41 AM".
It is accepted that Iain Dale is not a lawyer. However, he does claim to know what is insulting and what is not. And claims the right to decide who he will allow to be insulted and who he will not allow to be insulted on his blog:
"Anonymous posting is allowed, but if it is insulting to me or other people posting in the thread I reserve the right not to allow it through".
In my view, the following comments are insulting of and to me:
"Anonymous Geoff said...
No Jailhouselawyer, it doesn't help at all.
If I'm ever in the market for a second hand axe (slightly used) though then I'll give you a shout.
February 03, 2008 9:50 PM".
"Anonymous verity said...
Geoff - Jailhouse Lawyer would do well to drop his laughable professorial stance regarding crime. He doesn't understand that anyone who knows who he is wouldn't touch his link with a barge pole. He got some trash law degree in prison because they had to keep him occupied for 18 years or whatever it was (not long enough to pay for taking a life).
He claims to be a media consultant on prison law, but he also claims benefits from the British taxpayer, meaning relatives who loved the woman whose life he terminated with his axe attack are probably contributing to his upkeep, which goes against human nature.
In fact, there ought to be a series of boxes to tick on tax forms. Do you want money to go to providing prisoners with TVs and gym facilities? Tick here. Do want your money to go to building special muslim toilets facing away from mecca with your taxes? Tick here. Etc.
That would be illuminating, would it not?
February 04, 2008 12:40 AM".
"Anonymous jus' passin' thru' said...
verity and geoff.
jailhouselawyer describes himself as a prison law consultant and presumably gets paid for his activities.
As he is in receipt of Benefits and is clearly not making himself available for work, he obviously needs a little help.
National Benefit Fraud Hotline:
0800 854 440
These people would love to help him towards his goal of rehabilitation into mainstream society.
Happy to Help.
February 04, 2008 4:41 AM".
It will be noted that my comments are on topic, and not deserving of such treatment from someone who claims to be not only a respectable and responsible blogger, but also a respectable and responsible member of the Tory Party. It is not a libel to call Iain Dale both a liar and a hypocrite. Nor is it insulting to make a statement of fact. When, if ever, does Iain Dale intend to clean up his act? Could it be because it is deemed too dirty even for the Tories that they will not select him to run for a Tory seat (other than that in the small room)?
Some bloggers will be aware of the on/off running battle between Iain Dale and Tim Ireland. And that Iain Dale's Diary has recently had a face lift to try and improve its image. But, all that glitters is not gold. For example:
"Rules of Engagement
Iain Dale 2:19 PM
RULES ON COMMENTS
I welcome a healthy debate on this blog. It's what blogging is all about. Strongly worded comments are acceptable, but libellous ones are not. It is commonly thought that somehow bloggers operate outside the law of libel. This is an incorrect assumption. If I feel that any comment could be contrued as libellous I will not allow it through comment moderation.
Swearing is banned on this blog. If you use a swear word in your comment, again, it is liable to be deleted without explanation.
Anonymous posting is allowed, but if it is insulting to me or other people posting in the thread I reserve the right not to allow it through.
Please try to be as polite as possible. People seem to think that the internet can be used to say things to people which you wold (sic) never dream of saying to their face. Strong argument is welcomed, but please try to steer clear of personal insults where possible.
If any of these rules are continually transgressed I reserve the right to ban an individual from posting further comments.
In short, I reserve the right to delete any comment made on this blog with no explanation. This is a debating forum which I have created and if people do not like my rules they should feel free not to participate.
If you have suggestions for further rules of engagement, please feel free to leave them in the comments on this thread".
Now we have read the theory, let us see it in practice with this post and the comments here.
In particular, "...libellous ones are not. It is commonly thought that somehow bloggers operate outside the law of libel. This is an incorrect assumption. If I feel that any comment could be contrued as libellous I will not allow it through comment moderation". I recall Iain Dale stating on more than one occasion that he is not a lawyer. Therefore, how can he construe what is deemed as libellous? Perhaps, he should sell his new Audi and spend the money instead on seeking the legal advice from a libel lawyer (I don't mean that plonker Donal Blaney who is a tax lawyer and stepping into a minefield for his BNP chum Guido Fawkes/Paul Staines)?
It is arguable that I am a lawyer, like Donal Blaney, the laws of libel are not my specialist area. Nevertheless, I would construe this comment as a libel:
"Anonymous jus' passin' thru' said...
verity and geoff.
jailhouselawyer describes himself as a prison law consultant and presumably gets paid for his activities.
As he is in receipt of Benefits and is clearly not making himself available for work, he obviously needs a little help.
National Benefit Fraud Hotline:
0800 854 440
These people would love to help him towards his goal of rehabilitation into mainstream society.
Happy to Help.
February 04, 2008 4:41 AM".
It is accepted that Iain Dale is not a lawyer. However, he does claim to know what is insulting and what is not. And claims the right to decide who he will allow to be insulted and who he will not allow to be insulted on his blog:
"Anonymous posting is allowed, but if it is insulting to me or other people posting in the thread I reserve the right not to allow it through".
In my view, the following comments are insulting of and to me:
"Anonymous Geoff said...
No Jailhouselawyer, it doesn't help at all.
If I'm ever in the market for a second hand axe (slightly used) though then I'll give you a shout.
February 03, 2008 9:50 PM".
"Anonymous verity said...
Geoff - Jailhouse Lawyer would do well to drop his laughable professorial stance regarding crime. He doesn't understand that anyone who knows who he is wouldn't touch his link with a barge pole. He got some trash law degree in prison because they had to keep him occupied for 18 years or whatever it was (not long enough to pay for taking a life).
He claims to be a media consultant on prison law, but he also claims benefits from the British taxpayer, meaning relatives who loved the woman whose life he terminated with his axe attack are probably contributing to his upkeep, which goes against human nature.
In fact, there ought to be a series of boxes to tick on tax forms. Do you want money to go to providing prisoners with TVs and gym facilities? Tick here. Do want your money to go to building special muslim toilets facing away from mecca with your taxes? Tick here. Etc.
That would be illuminating, would it not?
February 04, 2008 12:40 AM".
"Anonymous jus' passin' thru' said...
verity and geoff.
jailhouselawyer describes himself as a prison law consultant and presumably gets paid for his activities.
As he is in receipt of Benefits and is clearly not making himself available for work, he obviously needs a little help.
National Benefit Fraud Hotline:
0800 854 440
These people would love to help him towards his goal of rehabilitation into mainstream society.
Happy to Help.
February 04, 2008 4:41 AM".
It will be noted that my comments are on topic, and not deserving of such treatment from someone who claims to be not only a respectable and responsible blogger, but also a respectable and responsible member of the Tory Party. It is not a libel to call Iain Dale both a liar and a hypocrite. Nor is it insulting to make a statement of fact. When, if ever, does Iain Dale intend to clean up his act? Could it be because it is deemed too dirty even for the Tories that they will not select him to run for a Tory seat (other than that in the small room)?
Who guards the guards? (2)
Who guards the guards? (2)
The Tories are trying to make political capital out of this affair. I agree with David Davis that a Commons statement should be made by Jack Straw, however, why is he not calling for Commons statements from Charles Clarke and John Reid, the two former Home Secretaries who authorised the illegal bugging to take place? This might be a good time to inform David Davis, if he is not aware, and remind him if he is, that proof of posting is not proof of delivery. And, to ask Jack Straw, what is the purpose of ordering an inquiry (a waste of taxpayers money) into events for which the government already has the answers? Perhaps, questions should be asked, why is a man in prison who has not broken any English laws, and being held in custody on behalf of our American masters, just because he operated a website (not child porn related), and the Internet Service Provider is based in America? This world domination by America of other countries affairs should really stop. Not until America cleans up its violations of human rights in relation to Guantanamo Bay, should we agree to extradite our citizens on vague war against terror allegations.
The Tories are trying to make political capital out of this affair. I agree with David Davis that a Commons statement should be made by Jack Straw, however, why is he not calling for Commons statements from Charles Clarke and John Reid, the two former Home Secretaries who authorised the illegal bugging to take place? This might be a good time to inform David Davis, if he is not aware, and remind him if he is, that proof of posting is not proof of delivery. And, to ask Jack Straw, what is the purpose of ordering an inquiry (a waste of taxpayers money) into events for which the government already has the answers? Perhaps, questions should be asked, why is a man in prison who has not broken any English laws, and being held in custody on behalf of our American masters, just because he operated a website (not child porn related), and the Internet Service Provider is based in America? This world domination by America of other countries affairs should really stop. Not until America cleans up its violations of human rights in relation to Guantanamo Bay, should we agree to extradite our citizens on vague war against terror allegations.
Who guards the guards?
Who guards the guards?
Introduction
The Sunday Times is part of the Dead Tree Press, within the Mainstream Media (MSM), owned by Rupert Murdoch, but maintains independent editorial control. Many bloggers are disillusioned by the MSM. I have no time for Rupert Murdoch, however, I do have a lot of time for the Insight team which yesterday brought us the story "Police bugged Muslim MP ". Many years ago, when I was in prison, I was asked by a journalist friend, who worked on the Paul Foot column in the Daily Mirror, whether I was prepared to help the Insight team cover a story on the Mafia. Before I agreed, I asked to see stories that the journalist had covered previously. I was impressed enough to take a gamble if they protected their source and impressed with the finished article.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am long enough in the tooth to remember the "bugging scandal of Harold Wilson’s government". I am not concerned by the government edict which was intended to protect MPs from being bugged, nor that it has been breached in this case. However, I am concerned by the apparent illegality of this bugging operation carried out by the police/security services. We ended up going to war in Iraq because our then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, took the decision to serve our American masters in their quest for oil. In my view, this bugging operation has all the hallmarks of our once again doing the bidding of our American masters. I have already expressed a view, here, whom I believe to be legally responsible for breaking prison law. However, I believe that this has wider implications than the relatively narrow field of prison law. It affects or could potentially effect us all.
I am not in possession of all the necessary information in this case. But, it would appear that parts of our penal estate has been handed over to the control of the CIA. In effect, there are pockets of Guantanamo Bays within several of our penal establishments. In the 1970s, the government operated Control Units within British prisons. The scandal reached the MSM, Williams v Home Office reached the courts (Mickey Williams was represented by Harriet Harman), the Control Units closed, Harriet Harman was prosecuted and convicted, but then went on to win Harman v UK before the ECtHR. Special Units replaced the Control Units (I was in both the Hull Prison and Lincoln Prison Special Units), and Special Secure Units replaced the Special Units. Within Woodhill Prison, Milton Keynes, is a Special Secure Unit. I wonder if Babar Ahmad, who was being visited by Sadiq Khan MP, at the time he was bugged, was located within the Special Secure Unit, and whether he was allocated Category 'A' status? It has a bearing on how Babar Ahmad would be treated by the authorities, but has no bearing on whether the law should have been broken in relation to Sadiq Khan MP. Unless, that is, he was deemed to pose a risk to the public under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. We have a right to know if Sadiq Khan MP is the subject of an ongoing investigation. According to the Insight team "There was no suspicion of criminal conduct by Khan to justify the operation". But, this does not mean that he wasn't the subject of an ongoing investigation in the war against terror.
In the same way that prisoners human right to the vote is not a popular cause with the general public, at least according to the ECtHR and the government, the recent scandal of Derek Conway MP has led to the general public holding such low opinions of MPs that in a recent BBC poll over 75% believed that MPs should not be exempt from being bugged. But, whether MPs can be trusted is not really the issue here. It is whether the law has been broken, and who has decided that they are above the law in England. We cannot have the situation whereby Dark Forces believe that they are above the law whereas the rest of us are beneath the law. If the so-called upholders of the law break the said law that they are meant to uphold, then they are nothing short of being criminals themselves. There needs to be a dividing line, and in this case it has been crossed.
Introduction
The Sunday Times is part of the Dead Tree Press, within the Mainstream Media (MSM), owned by Rupert Murdoch, but maintains independent editorial control. Many bloggers are disillusioned by the MSM. I have no time for Rupert Murdoch, however, I do have a lot of time for the Insight team which yesterday brought us the story "Police bugged Muslim MP ". Many years ago, when I was in prison, I was asked by a journalist friend, who worked on the Paul Foot column in the Daily Mirror, whether I was prepared to help the Insight team cover a story on the Mafia. Before I agreed, I asked to see stories that the journalist had covered previously. I was impressed enough to take a gamble if they protected their source and impressed with the finished article.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am long enough in the tooth to remember the "bugging scandal of Harold Wilson’s government". I am not concerned by the government edict which was intended to protect MPs from being bugged, nor that it has been breached in this case. However, I am concerned by the apparent illegality of this bugging operation carried out by the police/security services. We ended up going to war in Iraq because our then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, took the decision to serve our American masters in their quest for oil. In my view, this bugging operation has all the hallmarks of our once again doing the bidding of our American masters. I have already expressed a view, here, whom I believe to be legally responsible for breaking prison law. However, I believe that this has wider implications than the relatively narrow field of prison law. It affects or could potentially effect us all.
I am not in possession of all the necessary information in this case. But, it would appear that parts of our penal estate has been handed over to the control of the CIA. In effect, there are pockets of Guantanamo Bays within several of our penal establishments. In the 1970s, the government operated Control Units within British prisons. The scandal reached the MSM, Williams v Home Office reached the courts (Mickey Williams was represented by Harriet Harman), the Control Units closed, Harriet Harman was prosecuted and convicted, but then went on to win Harman v UK before the ECtHR. Special Units replaced the Control Units (I was in both the Hull Prison and Lincoln Prison Special Units), and Special Secure Units replaced the Special Units. Within Woodhill Prison, Milton Keynes, is a Special Secure Unit. I wonder if Babar Ahmad, who was being visited by Sadiq Khan MP, at the time he was bugged, was located within the Special Secure Unit, and whether he was allocated Category 'A' status? It has a bearing on how Babar Ahmad would be treated by the authorities, but has no bearing on whether the law should have been broken in relation to Sadiq Khan MP. Unless, that is, he was deemed to pose a risk to the public under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. We have a right to know if Sadiq Khan MP is the subject of an ongoing investigation. According to the Insight team "There was no suspicion of criminal conduct by Khan to justify the operation". But, this does not mean that he wasn't the subject of an ongoing investigation in the war against terror.
In the same way that prisoners human right to the vote is not a popular cause with the general public, at least according to the ECtHR and the government, the recent scandal of Derek Conway MP has led to the general public holding such low opinions of MPs that in a recent BBC poll over 75% believed that MPs should not be exempt from being bugged. But, whether MPs can be trusted is not really the issue here. It is whether the law has been broken, and who has decided that they are above the law in England. We cannot have the situation whereby Dark Forces believe that they are above the law whereas the rest of us are beneath the law. If the so-called upholders of the law break the said law that they are meant to uphold, then they are nothing short of being criminals themselves. There needs to be a dividing line, and in this case it has been crossed.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Two Labour MPs bug another Labour MP
Two Labour MPs bug another Labour MP
The two Home Secretaries legally responsible in 2005 and 2006 for bugging Sadiq Khan MP are Charles Clarke MP and John Reid MP respectively.
Presently, legal responsibility for prisons rests with Jack Straw, the Minister of Justice.
There is no lawful authority under the Prison Act 1952 to bug either prisoners, legal advisers, or MPs. Because of the hierarchy of powers, the Prison Act 1952 is at the apex. The Act provides for the power to make Prison Rules, and Orders and Instructions. The Rules must come within the power of the Act, and the Orders within the Rules and the Act, and the Instructions within the Orders, Rules and Act. Any instruction, from the Home Secretary, to bug an MP within the bounds of a prison, is ultra vires, that is, outside the power of the Act, and therefore unlawful. Both Charles Clarke and John Reid have broken the law on this issue.
The issue here is Security versus the Law. There is lawful authority to place certain restrictions upon prisoner/legal adviser, and prisoner/MP communications if the prison authorities have reasonable suspicion to believe that, for example, the legal adviser or MP might try to smuggle drugs into the prison and give them to the prisoner. It is not unheard of for a legal adviser to engage in this sort of conduct. For example, when Paul Boateng was a solicitor, he was caught attempting to smuggle drugs into Brixton Prison. The affair was hushed up, and he later became a Labour MP and Prisons Minister!
If I was Sadiq Khan MP, I would demand that Charles Clarke MP and John Reid MP came into the House of Commons and make statements in relation to their suspicions because on grounds of Security, if Sadiq Khan MP has any involvement with terrorism, should he be working for the Ministry of Justice?
UPDATE:
Nobody legally gets inside or out of prison without the then Home Secretary (now Minister of Justice) authority. A prison officer arranges which prisoners sit upon which tables in a prison visiting room. If the police or security services had bugs on particular tables, they would indicate where they desired target prisoners to sit and the prison officer in charge of visits would ensure this occurred. He or she would be acting on authority of the Home Secretary. The prison officer in charge of visits would know if a visitor was official e.g. legal or MP, or domestic e.g. family or friend. So too would the prison officer in charge of the gatehouse. There is no way a Home Secretary could claim that he was not aware of the situation. Heads would roll downstairs if authority had not come from upstairs.
Visits have to be pre-arranged. It is standard operating procedure that when a MP seeks to visit a prison, the Home Office is informed just in case a prisoner divulges information which could cause embarrassment to the Prison Service. The Home Office would be informed of the name of the prisoner to be visited and the name of the MP, or the Home Office would ask for this information from the prison. It follows that the Home Office knew that the prisoner was being bugged, and that his visitors would be bugged including the MP.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
"4 Power to provide for lawful interception
(4) Conduct taking place in a prison is authorised by this section if it is conduct in exercise of any power conferred by or under any rules made under section 47 of the [1952 c. 52.] Prison Act 1952, section 39 of the [1989 c. 45.] Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 or section 13 of the [1953 c. 18 (N.I.).] Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 (prison rules)". This is in relation to the monitoring of telephones within prison.
Office of Surveillance Commissioners
Prison Act 1952 (as amended)
Prison Rules (1999)
Prison Service Order 4410 - prisoner communications - visits
The two Home Secretaries legally responsible in 2005 and 2006 for bugging Sadiq Khan MP are Charles Clarke MP and John Reid MP respectively.
Presently, legal responsibility for prisons rests with Jack Straw, the Minister of Justice.
There is no lawful authority under the Prison Act 1952 to bug either prisoners, legal advisers, or MPs. Because of the hierarchy of powers, the Prison Act 1952 is at the apex. The Act provides for the power to make Prison Rules, and Orders and Instructions. The Rules must come within the power of the Act, and the Orders within the Rules and the Act, and the Instructions within the Orders, Rules and Act. Any instruction, from the Home Secretary, to bug an MP within the bounds of a prison, is ultra vires, that is, outside the power of the Act, and therefore unlawful. Both Charles Clarke and John Reid have broken the law on this issue.
The issue here is Security versus the Law. There is lawful authority to place certain restrictions upon prisoner/legal adviser, and prisoner/MP communications if the prison authorities have reasonable suspicion to believe that, for example, the legal adviser or MP might try to smuggle drugs into the prison and give them to the prisoner. It is not unheard of for a legal adviser to engage in this sort of conduct. For example, when Paul Boateng was a solicitor, he was caught attempting to smuggle drugs into Brixton Prison. The affair was hushed up, and he later became a Labour MP and Prisons Minister!
If I was Sadiq Khan MP, I would demand that Charles Clarke MP and John Reid MP came into the House of Commons and make statements in relation to their suspicions because on grounds of Security, if Sadiq Khan MP has any involvement with terrorism, should he be working for the Ministry of Justice?
UPDATE:
Nobody legally gets inside or out of prison without the then Home Secretary (now Minister of Justice) authority. A prison officer arranges which prisoners sit upon which tables in a prison visiting room. If the police or security services had bugs on particular tables, they would indicate where they desired target prisoners to sit and the prison officer in charge of visits would ensure this occurred. He or she would be acting on authority of the Home Secretary. The prison officer in charge of visits would know if a visitor was official e.g. legal or MP, or domestic e.g. family or friend. So too would the prison officer in charge of the gatehouse. There is no way a Home Secretary could claim that he was not aware of the situation. Heads would roll downstairs if authority had not come from upstairs.
Visits have to be pre-arranged. It is standard operating procedure that when a MP seeks to visit a prison, the Home Office is informed just in case a prisoner divulges information which could cause embarrassment to the Prison Service. The Home Office would be informed of the name of the prisoner to be visited and the name of the MP, or the Home Office would ask for this information from the prison. It follows that the Home Office knew that the prisoner was being bugged, and that his visitors would be bugged including the MP.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
"4 Power to provide for lawful interception
(4) Conduct taking place in a prison is authorised by this section if it is conduct in exercise of any power conferred by or under any rules made under section 47 of the [1952 c. 52.] Prison Act 1952, section 39 of the [1989 c. 45.] Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 or section 13 of the [1953 c. 18 (N.I.).] Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 (prison rules)". This is in relation to the monitoring of telephones within prison.
Office of Surveillance Commissioners
Prison Act 1952 (as amended)
Prison Rules (1999)
Prison Service Order 4410 - prisoner communications - visits
Police bugged Muslim MP Sadiq Khan
Police bugged Muslim MP Sadiq Khan
SCOTLAND YARD’S antiterrorist squad secretly bugged a high-profile Labour Muslim MP during private meetings with one of his constituents.
Sadiq Khan, now a government whip, was recorded by an electronic listening device hidden in a table during visits to the constituent in prison.
The bugging of MPs is a breach of a government edict that has barred law agencies from eavesdropping on politicians since the bugging scandal of Harold Wilson’s government. There was no suspicion of criminal conduct by Khan to justify the operation.
A document seen by The Sunday Times shows there was internal concern about the propriety of bugging an MP, who was also a lawyer, but the operation nevertheless went ahead.
The disclosure will put further pressure on Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, who will be asked to explain why his officers apparently breached government rules – and if he authorised it.
Khan discussed sensitive personal and legal matters during the recorded meeting. The MP was said to be “outraged” yesterday. “From what you have told me, this is an infringement of a citizen’s right to have a private meeting with his MP,” he said.
Last night Jack Straw, the justice secretary, said that he had ordered an immediate inquiry and added that it would be “unacceptable” for such a bugging operation to take place.
Andrew Mackinlay, a Labour colleague, said: “The bugging of Sadiq Khan is very dangerous indeed. It is totally unacceptable that MPs’ conversations with constituents are bugged by the security services or the police.
“It is an affront to democracy and has all the hallmarks of a totalitarian regime. No one is suggesting that MPs should be above the law, but when behaving as MPs and dealing with people’s liberty that must be sacrosanct as it is with lawyers.” Khan, 37, is a rising star in the Labour party and is seen as a key figure in Gordon Brown’s drive to win the hearts and minds of Britain’s Muslims. He is a former chairman of Liberty, the human rights group, and used to be a legal adviser to the Muslim Council of Britain. As a lawyer he was a thorn in the side of the Metropolitan police, taking a series of controversial malpractice cases against them.
The bugging operation recorded conversations with his constituent, Babar Ahmad, who is facing deportation to the United States under new extradition laws. Khan has been a friend of Ahmad since childhood and has been a prominent campaigner against his extradition. He met the home secretary to discuss the case and handed over a petition of 18,000 signatures calling for Ahmad’s release.
The US government has accused Ahmad of running a website that raised funds for Taliban and Chechen terrorists in the late 1990s. He faces no charges in Britain but is wanted in the United States because his website was registered there.
Khan made two visits to Ahmad in 2005 and 2006 while he was on remand at Woodhill prison in Milton Keynes. Both meetings were secretly recorded. Ahmad’s family say he arranged the meetings because he was no longer free to go Khan’s constituency office in Tooting, south London, and wanted to see his MP.
Knowing that Khan was coming, the antiterrorist squad requested the bugging. Senior officers had already granted authorisation to bug Ahmad’s guests before Khan first visited. The officers had previously recorded family members who were leading the campaign to free him.
The meetings took place in the main visitors’ hall where each inmate is allocated an identical wooden table. Underneath the tables is a solid wood partition that separates prisoners from their visitors.
However, The Sunday Times has learnt that at least six of the tables have had their panels hollowed out to hide bugging equipment. They are known as “talking tables”. Inside each panel is a microphone, a battery, an antenna and a transmitter.
Such is the secrecy surrounding these tables that even the prison officers are said to be unaware of them. They are operated and maintained by specialist detectives permanently based at the prison.
The second meeting between Khan and Ahmad took place on the Saturday morning of June 24, 2006, during a crucial period for his campaign and legal case. Khan bought cups of tea and chocolate bars and joined Ahmad who had already been seated at one of the “talking tables”.
Every word was transmitted to a receiver in the domed ceiling above them and then routed to a nearby office. The digital recording was picked up by an antiterrorist branch officer the next Monday morning.
During the conversation the two men discussed the latest developments in the campaign against extradition. Khan updated Ahmad on a meeting in the House of Commons against the 2003 Extradition Act.
The Commons gathering had drawn support from politicians of all parties who had objected to changes in the law that allowed the United States to extradite suspects without first testing the case in a British court.
The antiterrorist officers would have heard Khan and Ahmad discussing tactics for his appeal, which was due to start shortly. The two men also talked about the civil case he was taking against the police, alleging that he was physically assaulted by officers when he was first arrested in December 2003 and released without charge.
Khan noticed nothing untoward. About a month later, Ahmad claims that he was approached by MI5 officers who offered him his freedom if he agreed to become their informant. He declined.
Meanwhile, Khan was promoted to assistant government whip in the Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for prisons.
The Sunday Times told him about the bugging operation last week. A friend said the disclosure might further undermine the government’s attempt to “reengage” the Muslim community. He said: “If he was not a Muslim MP would they be doing this? If it had been some ordinary white middle-class MP, would they have been bugged?” He added that this was a violation of an MP’s relationship with his constituent: “If you have not got the confidence to see your MP and know it is privileged, then that raises serious questions. It is f****** outrageous.”
The bugging is a probable breach of the Wilson doctrine that has protected politicians from eavesdropping by the security services for more than 40 years. It was introduced by Harold Wilson, then prime minister, and was reaffirmed in the Commons by Tony Blair as recently as March 2006.
Yesterday a senior Scotland Yard officer said Khan’s work as a defence lawyer had generated “ill feeling” in the Metropolitan police and questioned whether the force had legitimate grounds for the bugging. The officer said: “To do this you have to suspect the MP of being involved in some sort of conspiracy.”
He added that the operation may have breached Ahmad’s legal privilege: “The officers in charge would have known that because Khan is an MP and a lawyer there was a grave danger that the legal professional privilege would be breached.”
Ahmad remains in jail having lost his appeals in Britain and is awaiting a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. He has also lodged a civil claim against Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner. Ahmad’s wife Maryam has called for the home secretary to investigate the police bugging operation.
Last week an official report suggested that authorities, including local councils, were launching bugging operations against 1,000 people a day.
The Metropolitan police declined to comment yesterday. Insight: Michael Gillard and Jonathan Calvert
SCOTLAND YARD’S antiterrorist squad secretly bugged a high-profile Labour Muslim MP during private meetings with one of his constituents.
Sadiq Khan, now a government whip, was recorded by an electronic listening device hidden in a table during visits to the constituent in prison.
The bugging of MPs is a breach of a government edict that has barred law agencies from eavesdropping on politicians since the bugging scandal of Harold Wilson’s government. There was no suspicion of criminal conduct by Khan to justify the operation.
A document seen by The Sunday Times shows there was internal concern about the propriety of bugging an MP, who was also a lawyer, but the operation nevertheless went ahead.
The disclosure will put further pressure on Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, who will be asked to explain why his officers apparently breached government rules – and if he authorised it.
Khan discussed sensitive personal and legal matters during the recorded meeting. The MP was said to be “outraged” yesterday. “From what you have told me, this is an infringement of a citizen’s right to have a private meeting with his MP,” he said.
Last night Jack Straw, the justice secretary, said that he had ordered an immediate inquiry and added that it would be “unacceptable” for such a bugging operation to take place.
Andrew Mackinlay, a Labour colleague, said: “The bugging of Sadiq Khan is very dangerous indeed. It is totally unacceptable that MPs’ conversations with constituents are bugged by the security services or the police.
“It is an affront to democracy and has all the hallmarks of a totalitarian regime. No one is suggesting that MPs should be above the law, but when behaving as MPs and dealing with people’s liberty that must be sacrosanct as it is with lawyers.” Khan, 37, is a rising star in the Labour party and is seen as a key figure in Gordon Brown’s drive to win the hearts and minds of Britain’s Muslims. He is a former chairman of Liberty, the human rights group, and used to be a legal adviser to the Muslim Council of Britain. As a lawyer he was a thorn in the side of the Metropolitan police, taking a series of controversial malpractice cases against them.
The bugging operation recorded conversations with his constituent, Babar Ahmad, who is facing deportation to the United States under new extradition laws. Khan has been a friend of Ahmad since childhood and has been a prominent campaigner against his extradition. He met the home secretary to discuss the case and handed over a petition of 18,000 signatures calling for Ahmad’s release.
The US government has accused Ahmad of running a website that raised funds for Taliban and Chechen terrorists in the late 1990s. He faces no charges in Britain but is wanted in the United States because his website was registered there.
Khan made two visits to Ahmad in 2005 and 2006 while he was on remand at Woodhill prison in Milton Keynes. Both meetings were secretly recorded. Ahmad’s family say he arranged the meetings because he was no longer free to go Khan’s constituency office in Tooting, south London, and wanted to see his MP.
Knowing that Khan was coming, the antiterrorist squad requested the bugging. Senior officers had already granted authorisation to bug Ahmad’s guests before Khan first visited. The officers had previously recorded family members who were leading the campaign to free him.
The meetings took place in the main visitors’ hall where each inmate is allocated an identical wooden table. Underneath the tables is a solid wood partition that separates prisoners from their visitors.
However, The Sunday Times has learnt that at least six of the tables have had their panels hollowed out to hide bugging equipment. They are known as “talking tables”. Inside each panel is a microphone, a battery, an antenna and a transmitter.
Such is the secrecy surrounding these tables that even the prison officers are said to be unaware of them. They are operated and maintained by specialist detectives permanently based at the prison.
The second meeting between Khan and Ahmad took place on the Saturday morning of June 24, 2006, during a crucial period for his campaign and legal case. Khan bought cups of tea and chocolate bars and joined Ahmad who had already been seated at one of the “talking tables”.
Every word was transmitted to a receiver in the domed ceiling above them and then routed to a nearby office. The digital recording was picked up by an antiterrorist branch officer the next Monday morning.
During the conversation the two men discussed the latest developments in the campaign against extradition. Khan updated Ahmad on a meeting in the House of Commons against the 2003 Extradition Act.
The Commons gathering had drawn support from politicians of all parties who had objected to changes in the law that allowed the United States to extradite suspects without first testing the case in a British court.
The antiterrorist officers would have heard Khan and Ahmad discussing tactics for his appeal, which was due to start shortly. The two men also talked about the civil case he was taking against the police, alleging that he was physically assaulted by officers when he was first arrested in December 2003 and released without charge.
Khan noticed nothing untoward. About a month later, Ahmad claims that he was approached by MI5 officers who offered him his freedom if he agreed to become their informant. He declined.
Meanwhile, Khan was promoted to assistant government whip in the Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for prisons.
The Sunday Times told him about the bugging operation last week. A friend said the disclosure might further undermine the government’s attempt to “reengage” the Muslim community. He said: “If he was not a Muslim MP would they be doing this? If it had been some ordinary white middle-class MP, would they have been bugged?” He added that this was a violation of an MP’s relationship with his constituent: “If you have not got the confidence to see your MP and know it is privileged, then that raises serious questions. It is f****** outrageous.”
The bugging is a probable breach of the Wilson doctrine that has protected politicians from eavesdropping by the security services for more than 40 years. It was introduced by Harold Wilson, then prime minister, and was reaffirmed in the Commons by Tony Blair as recently as March 2006.
Yesterday a senior Scotland Yard officer said Khan’s work as a defence lawyer had generated “ill feeling” in the Metropolitan police and questioned whether the force had legitimate grounds for the bugging. The officer said: “To do this you have to suspect the MP of being involved in some sort of conspiracy.”
He added that the operation may have breached Ahmad’s legal privilege: “The officers in charge would have known that because Khan is an MP and a lawyer there was a grave danger that the legal professional privilege would be breached.”
Ahmad remains in jail having lost his appeals in Britain and is awaiting a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. He has also lodged a civil claim against Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner. Ahmad’s wife Maryam has called for the home secretary to investigate the police bugging operation.
Last week an official report suggested that authorities, including local councils, were launching bugging operations against 1,000 people a day.
The Metropolitan police declined to comment yesterday. Insight: Michael Gillard and Jonathan Calvert
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Legal threats fired in blog war
Legal threats fired in blog war
On January 24th 2008, at 12.32pm, Guido Fawkes posted this, with the rather dubious claim entitled "How Guido Destroyed Hain's Ambitions in 12 Months". With the post was an accompanying political cartoon, at the bottom of which read "richandmark.com".
On January 25th 2008, at 10.43am, James Kirkup blogged a post entitled "Who is Guido working for?", and posted the same political cartoon used by Guido in his post. Generally speaking, if I use material from elsewhere on the internet, I source it with a link and/or post a Hat-Tip. But, if I use a Steve Bell cartoon, for example, because he has already signed it with his name and it includes a copyright symbol, I don't tend to bother.
The first comment beneath James Kirkup's post is:
"Guido Fawkes's avatar
Have you paid me for the use of that picture?
Guido Fawkes 25 Jan 2008 11:14
Doh!".
This from the man who has stated: "I do rip off images from the BBC website because I regard them as public property".
Recently, I tipped off the BBC that another conman was plagiarising their website. I did so because he had libelled a good friend of mine, and was earning revenue from advertising, and I thought that he was taking a liberty. As I understand it, Guido earns revenue from the adverts on his blog, therefore he is treading on dangerous ground.
I don't think he is in a very good position to start a blog war with Tim Ireland. My only argument with Tim Ireland is that I cannot find the place to register on his blog to enable me to leave a comment! I have plenty to argue with Guido but he won't pick a fight with me. I even pinched his cartoon that he took issue over with James Kirkup, and did not pay him for it, and arranged for it to be photoshopped and altered the image and the name richandmark.com. Still, he did not want to come out and play. Rather, the BNP wallah hides in his trench and has sought the free advice and assistance from a solicitor who is a Tory-cum-fascist and has been legitimately described as a racist. Then up pops German Greer claiming to be a qualified psychiatrist and giving his quack diagnosis that Tim Ireland is mentally unbalanced. And taking Rachel North London's name in vain to support his invalid claim. Never mind Shane Greer, it should be shame Greer!
Thankfully, we have the likes of The Sandwell Weasel Eater, Unity, and Justin. Henry North London gets a mention in dispatches.
On January 24th 2008, at 12.32pm, Guido Fawkes posted this, with the rather dubious claim entitled "How Guido Destroyed Hain's Ambitions in 12 Months". With the post was an accompanying political cartoon, at the bottom of which read "richandmark.com".
On January 25th 2008, at 10.43am, James Kirkup blogged a post entitled "Who is Guido working for?", and posted the same political cartoon used by Guido in his post. Generally speaking, if I use material from elsewhere on the internet, I source it with a link and/or post a Hat-Tip. But, if I use a Steve Bell cartoon, for example, because he has already signed it with his name and it includes a copyright symbol, I don't tend to bother.
The first comment beneath James Kirkup's post is:
"Guido Fawkes's avatar
Have you paid me for the use of that picture?
Guido Fawkes 25 Jan 2008 11:14
Doh!".
This from the man who has stated: "I do rip off images from the BBC website because I regard them as public property".
Recently, I tipped off the BBC that another conman was plagiarising their website. I did so because he had libelled a good friend of mine, and was earning revenue from advertising, and I thought that he was taking a liberty. As I understand it, Guido earns revenue from the adverts on his blog, therefore he is treading on dangerous ground.
I don't think he is in a very good position to start a blog war with Tim Ireland. My only argument with Tim Ireland is that I cannot find the place to register on his blog to enable me to leave a comment! I have plenty to argue with Guido but he won't pick a fight with me. I even pinched his cartoon that he took issue over with James Kirkup, and did not pay him for it, and arranged for it to be photoshopped and altered the image and the name richandmark.com. Still, he did not want to come out and play. Rather, the BNP wallah hides in his trench and has sought the free advice and assistance from a solicitor who is a Tory-cum-fascist and has been legitimately described as a racist. Then up pops German Greer claiming to be a qualified psychiatrist and giving his quack diagnosis that Tim Ireland is mentally unbalanced. And taking Rachel North London's name in vain to support his invalid claim. Never mind Shane Greer, it should be shame Greer!
Thankfully, we have the likes of The Sandwell Weasel Eater, Unity, and Justin. Henry North London gets a mention in dispatches.
NatWest the bank robber
NatWest the bank robber
This morning I received a letter from the Social Security informing me that my Social Security benefits will change. "From 8 April 2008 your Jobseeker's Allowance will be £60.50 a week".
This is good news.
Especially as the letter states: "This payment of Jobseeker's Allowance is based on the amount the law says you need to live on".
Therefore, there is no lawful authority for NatWest to deduct £28.00 on the basis of a "Maintenance Charge" on 31 January 2008. And because there was only £5 and a few pence in my account, the balance now registers -£22 something overdrawn, which means at the start of next month I will be charged another £28.
It is pointless and confusing for the government and law to say one thing and NatWest to say another.
This morning I received a letter from the Social Security informing me that my Social Security benefits will change. "From 8 April 2008 your Jobseeker's Allowance will be £60.50 a week".
This is good news.
Especially as the letter states: "This payment of Jobseeker's Allowance is based on the amount the law says you need to live on".
Therefore, there is no lawful authority for NatWest to deduct £28.00 on the basis of a "Maintenance Charge" on 31 January 2008. And because there was only £5 and a few pence in my account, the balance now registers -£22 something overdrawn, which means at the start of next month I will be charged another £28.
It is pointless and confusing for the government and law to say one thing and NatWest to say another.
Top Tory blogger is bottom of the class
Top Tory blogger is bottom of the class
I agree with Iain Dale when he states: "Idiot that I am", and he needs to go back to school for a geography lesson because he was labouring under the impression that America is part of Europe!
I agree with Iain Dale when he states: "Idiot that I am", and he needs to go back to school for a geography lesson because he was labouring under the impression that America is part of Europe!
No joke this
No joke this
At a time when motorists are being urged not to use mobile phones when driving, this clown decides to take both hands off the steering wheel as he goes speeding past a speed camera just to give his colleagues something to laugh at.
This is why you need to concentrate upon driving.
At a time when motorists are being urged not to use mobile phones when driving, this clown decides to take both hands off the steering wheel as he goes speeding past a speed camera just to give his colleagues something to laugh at.
This is why you need to concentrate upon driving.
Boom boom as Basil Brush would say
Boom boom as Basil Brush would say
Given that "They were hidden under the traditional garments worn by the women, whose identity and nationalities were unknown", how come it is being claimed that both women were mentally impaired with Downs Syndrome?.
Given that "They were hidden under the traditional garments worn by the women, whose identity and nationalities were unknown", how come it is being claimed that both women were mentally impaired with Downs Syndrome?.
Friday, February 01, 2008
US Presidential race sex scandal
US Presidential race sex scandal
Hillary Clinton caught giving Barack Obama a love bite...
He can think himself lucky he isn't Bill, and she isn't Monica, and it isn't his manhood which she is sinking her teeth into...
Idea: Jailhouselawyer
Photoshop: Ronknee
Hillary Clinton caught giving Barack Obama a love bite...
He can think himself lucky he isn't Bill, and she isn't Monica, and it isn't his manhood which she is sinking her teeth into...
Idea: Jailhouselawyer
Photoshop: Ronknee
Asbo bans man's sheep from village
Asbo bans man's sheep from village
"A sheep farmer has been given an Asbo that deprives him of the ancient right to graze his flock in his village.
Jeremy Awdry, 59, was given an interim anti-social behaviour order after allegations from neighbours that he could not control his livestock.
Mr Awdry, of Bream in the Forest of Dean, has been excluded from taking his animals into the village. His own home falls just outside the no-go zone.
For 500 years, Forest of Dean-born commoners known as "sheep badgers" have been able to let their livestock graze freely.
However, in recent times the district and parish councils have received complaints relating to sheep mess, damage to property and the animals becoming a hazard on the roads.
Mr Awdry, who is free to take his sheep elsewhere in the area, will appear at Coleford magistrates' court next month for a full Asbo application hearing.
It is believed as many as 40 incidents will be put to the court. Mr Awdry could not be contacted for comment".
In that case, then I will comment. Bah, bah, bah. I wonder how many of those who have complained are townies or city dwellers who have second homes in the village? If this is the case, they should be served with Asbos for causing a nuisance.
"A sheep farmer has been given an Asbo that deprives him of the ancient right to graze his flock in his village.
Jeremy Awdry, 59, was given an interim anti-social behaviour order after allegations from neighbours that he could not control his livestock.
Mr Awdry, of Bream in the Forest of Dean, has been excluded from taking his animals into the village. His own home falls just outside the no-go zone.
For 500 years, Forest of Dean-born commoners known as "sheep badgers" have been able to let their livestock graze freely.
However, in recent times the district and parish councils have received complaints relating to sheep mess, damage to property and the animals becoming a hazard on the roads.
Mr Awdry, who is free to take his sheep elsewhere in the area, will appear at Coleford magistrates' court next month for a full Asbo application hearing.
It is believed as many as 40 incidents will be put to the court. Mr Awdry could not be contacted for comment".
In that case, then I will comment. Bah, bah, bah. I wonder how many of those who have complained are townies or city dwellers who have second homes in the village? If this is the case, they should be served with Asbos for causing a nuisance.
Is Iain Dale a Martian?
Is Iain Dale a Martian?
I question whether the number one political blogger, Iain Dale, has got his finger on the political pulse. In Conservative's not prepared to tolerate sleaze, I thought the Tories invented sleaze. Iain Dale places Derek Conway in the same league as Margaret Thatcher and Iain Duncan Smith. I wouldn't have put IDS in the same league as Margaret Thatcher in the first place. Comparing Derek Conway to Margaret Thatcher, we have to ask the question: 'has Iain Dale lost his marbles where the sun doesn't shine'? He states that he is biased, and proud to stand behind his friend Derek Conway. Bear in mind the saying that pride comes before a fall. Personally, I wouldn't want Iain Dale standing behind me. Given his stated bias, it is a bit rich to claim he has inside knowledge whereas other "people who have scant knowledge of the detail of the case rush to judgment and turn on one of their own". Derek Conway was caught bang to rights with his grubby little paws in the public purse. What more do people need to know? "He has admitted his mistakes and paid a very heavy price". I would argue that neither of these are true. I would not call David Cameron being decisive waiting until the shit hit the fan and seeing how far it spread before trying to wipe a bit of it away, and saying look we're now clean, its the new image. The smell of shit lingers. No wonder Iain Dale is a fan of Life on Mars, with a comment like this "I have little doubt that if this scandal had happened six months ago, or in six months' time, Conway might well have faced an uncomfortable time, but he would not be staring at the end of his political career". Remind us again which planet you're from Mr Dale? "Labour MPs probably have more sympathy for him than his Tory colleagues". I doubt this very much. Sympathy for the devil? Satan get thee behind me. Preferably, at least, a million miles. "Enough is enough". Of this corruption being damaging to politics? On this point, at least, we are in agreement.
I question whether the number one political blogger, Iain Dale, has got his finger on the political pulse. In Conservative's not prepared to tolerate sleaze, I thought the Tories invented sleaze. Iain Dale places Derek Conway in the same league as Margaret Thatcher and Iain Duncan Smith. I wouldn't have put IDS in the same league as Margaret Thatcher in the first place. Comparing Derek Conway to Margaret Thatcher, we have to ask the question: 'has Iain Dale lost his marbles where the sun doesn't shine'? He states that he is biased, and proud to stand behind his friend Derek Conway. Bear in mind the saying that pride comes before a fall. Personally, I wouldn't want Iain Dale standing behind me. Given his stated bias, it is a bit rich to claim he has inside knowledge whereas other "people who have scant knowledge of the detail of the case rush to judgment and turn on one of their own". Derek Conway was caught bang to rights with his grubby little paws in the public purse. What more do people need to know? "He has admitted his mistakes and paid a very heavy price". I would argue that neither of these are true. I would not call David Cameron being decisive waiting until the shit hit the fan and seeing how far it spread before trying to wipe a bit of it away, and saying look we're now clean, its the new image. The smell of shit lingers. No wonder Iain Dale is a fan of Life on Mars, with a comment like this "I have little doubt that if this scandal had happened six months ago, or in six months' time, Conway might well have faced an uncomfortable time, but he would not be staring at the end of his political career". Remind us again which planet you're from Mr Dale? "Labour MPs probably have more sympathy for him than his Tory colleagues". I doubt this very much. Sympathy for the devil? Satan get thee behind me. Preferably, at least, a million miles. "Enough is enough". Of this corruption being damaging to politics? On this point, at least, we are in agreement.
Prisoners' detention 'unlawful'
Prisoners' detention 'unlawful'
The sentences of hundreds of prisoners could be affected after appeal judges ruled ministers acted unlawfully by keeping some inmates in jail too long.
The Court of Appeal said the government failed to provide inmates serving indeterminate sentences with courses to show they were safe for release.
This meant some were being held longer than necessary, judges concluded.
In another ruling, the court found the parole system in England and Wales was not independent enough from government.
Appeal judges upheld an earlier High Court decision that the Parole Board did not comply with the human rights of offenders because it lacked the independence from ministers required to make prisoner release decisions.
Life prisoners
The ruling on indeterminate sentences for public protection (IPP) - under which offenders must prove they are safe for release - came after an appeal by sex offender David Walker in July last year.
He successfully argued he could not be considered for release because his jail did not offer a parole course.
Although he was given an indeterminate sentence with a minimum tariff which expired in October, he was unable to be considered for release until he had gone through the parole procedure, which included going on a parole course.
But his lawyers said there were no parole courses for life prisoners at his category of jail. They claimed he was therefore being subjected to arbitrary detention in breach of his human rights.
Appeal judges at the time ruled in his favour and have now rejected an appeal by the Ministry of Justice against the decision.
Neither the Secretary of State [Jack Straw] nor his department has adequately addressed the need for the Parole Board to be and to be seen to be free of influence
Lord Phillips
Rejecting another appeal by Justice Secretary Jack Straw over the independence of the Parole Board system, the Lord Chief Justice said the High Court's findings that the board lacked independence were "fully supported" by the evidence.
The cause of the problem, Lord Phillips said, had been the change of function of the Parole Board.
It had been transformed from being an organisation which advised the Secretary of State over prisoner release, to that of a judicial body which decided whether offenders could be released if judged safe, the court was told.
Lord Phillips added: "Neither the Secretary of State [Jack Straw] nor his department has adequately addressed the need for the Parole Board to be and to be seen to be free of influence in relation to the performance of its judicial functions".
A year in politics is a long time
A year in politics is a long time
Before
After
See original photo and Daily Telegraph sketch.
Idea: Jailhouselawyer
Photoshop: Ronknee.
Before
After
See original photo and Daily Telegraph sketch.
Idea: Jailhouselawyer
Photoshop: Ronknee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)