Prisons competition and capacity announcement
13 July 2011
A competition strategy for the management of nine prisons and the closure of two prison sites has been announced today by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Kenneth Clarke.
In the autumn the management of HMPs Lindholme, Moorland, Hatfield, The Wolds, Acklington, Castington, Durham, Onley and Coldingley will be subject to competition. The Wolds is a prison currently run by G4S that has come to the end of its current contract; the other eight prisons are public sector establishments being competed for the first time. The prisons have been selected by the National Offender Management Service to balance the need to increase efficiency and to make real the policy intent of the department’s Green Paper, Breaking The Cycle.
HMP Latchmere House and HMP Brockhill will close in September. This will see a reduction of 377 prison spaces. This is part of an overall programme which includes a further 2,500 new prison places becoming available over the next 12 months. The closure of these places will provide estimated cost savings of £4.9m this year and an on-going annual saving of £11.4m. We expect to be able to absorb staff displaced by this process elsewhere in the system and to avoid the use of compulsory redundancies.
Our approach to competition within Offender Services, and to changes to the prison estate, is an important part of our strategy to improve the efficiency and value for money of our services.
Decisions about which prisons were selected for competition or closure was based on a wide range of criteria including the potential for efficiency improvements, service reform and innovation, not on the basis of poor performance.
Changes resulting from the competition and capacity announcements will not compromise public safety or reduce the quality of our services - we will always ensure there are sufficient prison places for offenders sentenced to custody by the courts.
Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Kenneth Clarke said:
'The public have a right to expect continuing improvement in the quality and efficiency of public services, without compromising public safety. The competition strategy and adjustments to the prison estate will help ensure that this is the case.'
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
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Plans to allow prisoners to work 40-hour week are 'impractical'
Plans to allow prisoners to work 40-hour week are 'impractical'
Prison officers warn of insufficient staff numbers to oversee justice secretary's proposals for improving inmate rehabilitation
Comment: At least the Association of Prisoners and the Prison Officer's Association are in agreement that the plan will not work if prison labour steals jobs from workers outside, if prison labour is not paid the NMW.
Prison officers warn of insufficient staff numbers to oversee justice secretary's proposals for improving inmate rehabilitation
Comment: At least the Association of Prisoners and the Prison Officer's Association are in agreement that the plan will not work if prison labour steals jobs from workers outside, if prison labour is not paid the NMW.
Montgomery Burns visits Little Britain
Montgomery Burns visits Little Britain
Exclusive interview by Johann Hari
There I was at Luton Airport awaiting my flight to take me on my 2 month holiday when I spotted Montgomery Burns coming in through the VIP channel.
JH: Are you aware that there is a Monty's Double?
MB: I did hear a rumour that Rupert Murdoch has a passing resemblence to me.
JH: Can I trouble you for your autograph because nobody will believe me otherwise that I actually met you?
MB: Sure, where do I sign?
JH: Right here beneath the word Disclaimer, on the dotted line after I, and before confirm that that this is a true record of our interview (subject to revision to reflect reality through fiction).
Exclusive interview by Johann Hari
There I was at Luton Airport awaiting my flight to take me on my 2 month holiday when I spotted Montgomery Burns coming in through the VIP channel.
JH: Are you aware that there is a Monty's Double?
MB: I did hear a rumour that Rupert Murdoch has a passing resemblence to me.
JH: Can I trouble you for your autograph because nobody will believe me otherwise that I actually met you?
MB: Sure, where do I sign?
JH: Right here beneath the word Disclaimer, on the dotted line after I, and before confirm that that this is a true record of our interview (subject to revision to reflect reality through fiction).
Rupert Murdoch becomes character in The Simpsons
Rupert Murdoch becomes character in The Simpsons
An episode of The Simpsons screened last night about an aging tycoon who buys up a media empire
An episode of The Simpsons screened last night about an aging tycoon who buys up a media empire...
An episode of The Simpsons screened last night about an aging tycoon who buys up a media empire
An episode of The Simpsons screened last night about an aging tycoon who buys up a media empire...
Cameron and Murdoch together...
Cameron and Murdoch together...
...you are known by the company you keep. They look like a pair of Mafia Dons.
...you are known by the company you keep. They look like a pair of Mafia Dons.
£30m for vulnerable victims and their families
£30m for vulnerable victims and their families
12 July 2011
Vulnerable crime victims across England and Wales will benefit from £30m of Government funding, over the next three years, Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke announced.
The money will go to support local organisations that have a proven track record in supporting victims at their most vulnerable.
Children's groups are among those that will benefit, along with charities supporting victims of rape, domestic violence, hate crime, burglary, anti social behaviour and other violent crime.
Those bereaved by murder, manslaughter and fatal road traffic crimes will also get the specialist support that they need.
Kenneth Clarke said: 'Grass-roots groups know the needs of their local area - and bring a wealth of experience to our drive to support the most seriously affected, vulnerable and persistently targeted victims of crime as they rebuild their lives. Funding these local organisations will help bring a targeted, sustained and tailored service to those who need it the most.
'This approach, coupled with our plans to reduce re-offending and to break the cycle of crime, will help us achieve our dual goals of protecting society and better supporting victims.'
Sustained support
Abigail Finnegan, chief executive of the Safety Net Advice and Support Centre for rape victims in Cumbria, said: 'Ministry of Justice funding will help us reach children and families affected by rape and sexual abuse, particularly on the West Coast of Cumbria, where services for this type of work are few and far between.
'The provision of sustained funding means that a postcode lottery of specialist services is removed in West Cumbria and that we have increased capacity to provide long term specialist support to those who need it most.'
12 July 2011
Vulnerable crime victims across England and Wales will benefit from £30m of Government funding, over the next three years, Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke announced.
The money will go to support local organisations that have a proven track record in supporting victims at their most vulnerable.
Children's groups are among those that will benefit, along with charities supporting victims of rape, domestic violence, hate crime, burglary, anti social behaviour and other violent crime.
Those bereaved by murder, manslaughter and fatal road traffic crimes will also get the specialist support that they need.
Kenneth Clarke said: 'Grass-roots groups know the needs of their local area - and bring a wealth of experience to our drive to support the most seriously affected, vulnerable and persistently targeted victims of crime as they rebuild their lives. Funding these local organisations will help bring a targeted, sustained and tailored service to those who need it the most.
'This approach, coupled with our plans to reduce re-offending and to break the cycle of crime, will help us achieve our dual goals of protecting society and better supporting victims.'
Sustained support
Abigail Finnegan, chief executive of the Safety Net Advice and Support Centre for rape victims in Cumbria, said: 'Ministry of Justice funding will help us reach children and families affected by rape and sexual abuse, particularly on the West Coast of Cumbria, where services for this type of work are few and far between.
'The provision of sustained funding means that a postcode lottery of specialist services is removed in West Cumbria and that we have increased capacity to provide long term specialist support to those who need it most.'
Owl leaves imprint on Kendal woman's window
Owl leaves imprint on Kendal woman's window
The silhouette was left by the bird's powder down - a substance protecting growing feathers
A woman returned to her Cumbrian home to find a near perfect imprint of an owl on her window.
The bird had apparently crashed into the window of Sally Arnold's Kendal home, leaving the bizarre image - complete with eyes, beak and feathers.
Experts said the silhouette was left by the bird's "powder down" - a substance protecting growing feathers.
Mrs Arnold said she could find no sign of the owl, so assumed it had flown off without serious injury.
She said: "Our first concern was for the welfare of what we suspected was an owl and we opened up the window to check if it was still around.
"Fortunately, there was no sign of the bird and we can only assume that it had flown away probably suffering from a headache."
'Very uncomfortable'
Experts from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) confirmed the bird was most likely a tawny owl because of its size and shape and the fact that they appear in gardens more regularly than others.
Val Osborne, head of the RSPB's wildlife inquiries team, said: "We don't very often see an imprint of a bird that's flown into a window that's this clear and where it's pretty obvious exactly what kind of bird it is.
"This would have been very uncomfortable for the bird but thankfully it looks like it survived as Mr and Mrs Arnold couldn't find it anywhere close by. Sadly, many birds aren't so lucky."
Birds often collide with windows or start to attack them, especially at this time of year with so many young birds around, the RSPB said.
The silhouette was left by the bird's powder down - a substance protecting growing feathersA woman returned to her Cumbrian home to find a near perfect imprint of an owl on her window.
The bird had apparently crashed into the window of Sally Arnold's Kendal home, leaving the bizarre image - complete with eyes, beak and feathers.
Experts said the silhouette was left by the bird's "powder down" - a substance protecting growing feathers.
Mrs Arnold said she could find no sign of the owl, so assumed it had flown off without serious injury.
She said: "Our first concern was for the welfare of what we suspected was an owl and we opened up the window to check if it was still around.
"Fortunately, there was no sign of the bird and we can only assume that it had flown away probably suffering from a headache."
'Very uncomfortable'
Experts from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) confirmed the bird was most likely a tawny owl because of its size and shape and the fact that they appear in gardens more regularly than others.
Val Osborne, head of the RSPB's wildlife inquiries team, said: "We don't very often see an imprint of a bird that's flown into a window that's this clear and where it's pretty obvious exactly what kind of bird it is.
"This would have been very uncomfortable for the bird but thankfully it looks like it survived as Mr and Mrs Arnold couldn't find it anywhere close by. Sadly, many birds aren't so lucky."
Birds often collide with windows or start to attack them, especially at this time of year with so many young birds around, the RSPB said.
Fear ruled Labour's media mindset – not principle
Fear ruled Labour's media mindset – not principle
We in Labour were cowed from reforming the media – but the Press Complaints Commission can still work, given teeth
Peter Mandelson, guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 July 2011 21.59 BST
It should be a source of regret for everyone associated with the last Labour government that the only action in relation to the media for which we will be remembered is going to war with the BBC following the Iraq invasion in 2003. Of course, Downing Street hated the negativity of the press – what government wouldn't? – but to say that, with all our other priorities, the prime minister decided that reform of the press would have to take a back seat is far-fetched.
The truth is, no issue of priority or principle was involved. We simply chose to be cowed because we were too fearful to do otherwise. And David Cameron took up where Tony Blair and Gordon Brown left off.
It has taken the News International crisis for politicians to discover their courage. Now they have to ensure that it is not primarily they who are protected from the "feral beast", but the public. This requires not statutory regulation but a robust, independent process to enable individuals to make right the falsehoods that slip through, or slander that sometimes gets pumped out by news rooms in the name of "press freedom".
There is now consensus that the vehicle for self-regulation, the Press Complaints Commission, is not fit for purpose. I would qualify this view by suggesting that, for example in cases involving allegations of harassment and protecting children, the PCC does a good job. Its present top team is a marked improvement on predecessors. But when it comes to respecting the privacy of public figures and individual members of the public, the system of self-regulation has been used largely to protect the self-interest of the PCC's most powerful members.
Let me offer five simple ideas to ensure that the PCC or its successor better reflects the public interest by strengthening its independence and investigatory powers.
First, follow the money. The PCC's £2m budget is raised through a levy on newspapers and publishers. The funds are organised through the Press Standards Board of Finance (PressBoF), established by the industry to fund the PCC. PressBoF has on its board a number of press luminaries including the Daily Mail editor, Paul Dacre, who, together with Les Hinton – then chief executive of News International – were the driving forces in creating the present system of self-regulation. The funding of the PCC needs to be administered by a genuinely independent body, the obvious being Ofcom, which could easily manage the system of levies.
Second, re-write the code. The editors' code of practice committee, the central self-regulating power, determines the rules that the PCC follows. This committee is chaired by Paul Dacre. Again, the rules need to be determined by a genuinely independent body, and I would suggest Ofcom appoint a panel of experienced figures to re-draw and monitor a new, tougher code.
Third, readers' editors. If newspapers really believe in self-regulation, they won't have a problem with ensuring that readers' editors are given prominent positions within their organisations and clear powers to correct published stories. I know from talking to journalists that a correction by one of their colleagues is a much more meaningful sanction than by an external body.
Fourth, pre-publication intervention. When an individual realises that a newspaper is preparing to publish something that is wrong or unjustifiably intrusive, the PCC may currently contact the paper on the individual's behalf. This needs strengthening, with bolder PCC powers and its personnel more embedded in the system of newspaper legal teams and readers' editors. The aim should be to keep newspapers on the right side both of the law and a new code of behaviour. If editors went against advice, they should face financial consequences if a story were subsequently found to be erroneous or in breach of the code.
Fifth, digitise the process. Technology has shone a much brighter light on the nooks and crannies of public life. Public bodies should be much more open about media inquiries. Media organisations should be obliged to publish online the extent to which they check stories and the full response they receive, including whole email trails if appropriate. Articles that are subject to complaints should be clearly flagged on newspaper websites. If the process of scrutiny becomes more visible and easy to follow, fact-checking and reporting will quickly improve.
These are relatively straightforward changes to a discredited system. Perhaps they do not go far enough. Ofcom would certainly not want statutory press powers, but involving Ofcom in order to buttress the PCC, making it more independent and effective, is an essential start.
Ultimately, it is cultural changes to journalists' working environment that will lift everyone's standards to those of the highest. Utilising technology to create greater transparency and using a system of newspaper fines when pre-publication intervention has failed will give the public greater confidence.
Given the PCC's current tools, its staff cannot help but fail to do their job adequately. Independent funding and code-making, as well as tougher intervention and enforcement, are what they need.
Comment: I agree with some of this but am in disagreement with some of it.
We in Labour were cowed from reforming the media – but the Press Complaints Commission can still work, given teeth
Peter Mandelson, guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 July 2011 21.59 BST
It should be a source of regret for everyone associated with the last Labour government that the only action in relation to the media for which we will be remembered is going to war with the BBC following the Iraq invasion in 2003. Of course, Downing Street hated the negativity of the press – what government wouldn't? – but to say that, with all our other priorities, the prime minister decided that reform of the press would have to take a back seat is far-fetched.
The truth is, no issue of priority or principle was involved. We simply chose to be cowed because we were too fearful to do otherwise. And David Cameron took up where Tony Blair and Gordon Brown left off.
It has taken the News International crisis for politicians to discover their courage. Now they have to ensure that it is not primarily they who are protected from the "feral beast", but the public. This requires not statutory regulation but a robust, independent process to enable individuals to make right the falsehoods that slip through, or slander that sometimes gets pumped out by news rooms in the name of "press freedom".
There is now consensus that the vehicle for self-regulation, the Press Complaints Commission, is not fit for purpose. I would qualify this view by suggesting that, for example in cases involving allegations of harassment and protecting children, the PCC does a good job. Its present top team is a marked improvement on predecessors. But when it comes to respecting the privacy of public figures and individual members of the public, the system of self-regulation has been used largely to protect the self-interest of the PCC's most powerful members.
Let me offer five simple ideas to ensure that the PCC or its successor better reflects the public interest by strengthening its independence and investigatory powers.
First, follow the money. The PCC's £2m budget is raised through a levy on newspapers and publishers. The funds are organised through the Press Standards Board of Finance (PressBoF), established by the industry to fund the PCC. PressBoF has on its board a number of press luminaries including the Daily Mail editor, Paul Dacre, who, together with Les Hinton – then chief executive of News International – were the driving forces in creating the present system of self-regulation. The funding of the PCC needs to be administered by a genuinely independent body, the obvious being Ofcom, which could easily manage the system of levies.
Second, re-write the code. The editors' code of practice committee, the central self-regulating power, determines the rules that the PCC follows. This committee is chaired by Paul Dacre. Again, the rules need to be determined by a genuinely independent body, and I would suggest Ofcom appoint a panel of experienced figures to re-draw and monitor a new, tougher code.
Third, readers' editors. If newspapers really believe in self-regulation, they won't have a problem with ensuring that readers' editors are given prominent positions within their organisations and clear powers to correct published stories. I know from talking to journalists that a correction by one of their colleagues is a much more meaningful sanction than by an external body.
Fourth, pre-publication intervention. When an individual realises that a newspaper is preparing to publish something that is wrong or unjustifiably intrusive, the PCC may currently contact the paper on the individual's behalf. This needs strengthening, with bolder PCC powers and its personnel more embedded in the system of newspaper legal teams and readers' editors. The aim should be to keep newspapers on the right side both of the law and a new code of behaviour. If editors went against advice, they should face financial consequences if a story were subsequently found to be erroneous or in breach of the code.
Fifth, digitise the process. Technology has shone a much brighter light on the nooks and crannies of public life. Public bodies should be much more open about media inquiries. Media organisations should be obliged to publish online the extent to which they check stories and the full response they receive, including whole email trails if appropriate. Articles that are subject to complaints should be clearly flagged on newspaper websites. If the process of scrutiny becomes more visible and easy to follow, fact-checking and reporting will quickly improve.
These are relatively straightforward changes to a discredited system. Perhaps they do not go far enough. Ofcom would certainly not want statutory press powers, but involving Ofcom in order to buttress the PCC, making it more independent and effective, is an essential start.
Ultimately, it is cultural changes to journalists' working environment that will lift everyone's standards to those of the highest. Utilising technology to create greater transparency and using a system of newspaper fines when pre-publication intervention has failed will give the public greater confidence.
Given the PCC's current tools, its staff cannot help but fail to do their job adequately. Independent funding and code-making, as well as tougher intervention and enforcement, are what they need.
Comment: I agree with some of this but am in disagreement with some of it.
Monday, July 11, 2011
How can ministers make the BSkyB deal go away?
How can ministers make the BSkyB deal go away?
By Norman Smith Chief political correspondent, BBC Radio 4
Ministers are understandably nervous about taking on Rupert Murdoch
Politicians take on Rupert Murdoch at their peril.
No wonder, therefore, that the government is desperately looking for some political cover before breaking the bad news to the boss of News Corporation that his bid for BSkyB is no longer welcome.
For ministers are under no illusion that - given the nature of the hacking allegations and the public fury they have aroused - the deal has to be blocked or irretrievably delayed.
So they have been desperately wrestling with what is the best way of blocking the deal without actually having to offend Mr Murdoch.
The answer appears to be to lob the political time bomb that is the BSkyB deal to the Competition Commission to defuse.
Although Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt told MPs that the planned buy out of BSkyB would now be referred to the competition regulator, privately the view in government is that whatever it decides the deal cannot be allowed to go ahead.
The slight danger with this strategy is that it looks suspiciously like buck-passing.
In short, as if ministers are hiding behind the sofa and leaving luckless souls elsewhere to do their dirty work.
Criminal convictions
Another problem with this approach is that the regulator may not actually deliver the coup de grace to the BSkyB buyout that the government needs.
And any decision it takes would eventually have to be approved by Mr Hunt.
In other words, Mr Hunt would have to emerge from behind the sofa and the government would have to square up to Mr Murdoch
As for other potential solutions to the government's problem, media regulator Ofcom has traditionally proved remarkably reluctant to block deals on the grounds that potential buyers are not "fit and proper" persons.
Indeed, it usually only does so if the buyer has a criminal conviction.
Hence it stopped the business man Owen Oyston from buying several radio stations because of a conviction for rape.
But Team Murdoch have not been convicted of anything, so it seems rather unlikely the Ofcom will block the deal.
Glacial speed
The most likely strategy therefore is delay, delay, delay.
Ministers will simply drag their feet in a fashion that would exhaust the patience of a saint.
The hope being that Mr Murdoch and his advisers will observe the glacial progress of the buyout deal and conclude - rightly - that ministers really don't want News Corporation to proceed with it.
The hope in government circles is that Mr Murdoch - faced with such public and political opposition - will himself decide to drop his planned buyout
It may not be very heroic.
But the view in government circles is that at least this way they scupper the deal while also avoiding a direct head-to-head confrontation with Mr Murdoch.
By Norman Smith Chief political correspondent, BBC Radio 4
Ministers are understandably nervous about taking on Rupert MurdochPoliticians take on Rupert Murdoch at their peril.
No wonder, therefore, that the government is desperately looking for some political cover before breaking the bad news to the boss of News Corporation that his bid for BSkyB is no longer welcome.
For ministers are under no illusion that - given the nature of the hacking allegations and the public fury they have aroused - the deal has to be blocked or irretrievably delayed.
So they have been desperately wrestling with what is the best way of blocking the deal without actually having to offend Mr Murdoch.
The answer appears to be to lob the political time bomb that is the BSkyB deal to the Competition Commission to defuse.
Although Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt told MPs that the planned buy out of BSkyB would now be referred to the competition regulator, privately the view in government is that whatever it decides the deal cannot be allowed to go ahead.
The slight danger with this strategy is that it looks suspiciously like buck-passing.
In short, as if ministers are hiding behind the sofa and leaving luckless souls elsewhere to do their dirty work.
Criminal convictions
Another problem with this approach is that the regulator may not actually deliver the coup de grace to the BSkyB buyout that the government needs.
And any decision it takes would eventually have to be approved by Mr Hunt.
In other words, Mr Hunt would have to emerge from behind the sofa and the government would have to square up to Mr Murdoch
As for other potential solutions to the government's problem, media regulator Ofcom has traditionally proved remarkably reluctant to block deals on the grounds that potential buyers are not "fit and proper" persons.
Indeed, it usually only does so if the buyer has a criminal conviction.
Hence it stopped the business man Owen Oyston from buying several radio stations because of a conviction for rape.
But Team Murdoch have not been convicted of anything, so it seems rather unlikely the Ofcom will block the deal.
Glacial speed
The most likely strategy therefore is delay, delay, delay.
Ministers will simply drag their feet in a fashion that would exhaust the patience of a saint.
The hope being that Mr Murdoch and his advisers will observe the glacial progress of the buyout deal and conclude - rightly - that ministers really don't want News Corporation to proceed with it.
The hope in government circles is that Mr Murdoch - faced with such public and political opposition - will himself decide to drop his planned buyout
It may not be very heroic.
But the view in government circles is that at least this way they scupper the deal while also avoiding a direct head-to-head confrontation with Mr Murdoch.
Competition Commission for sale to the highest BSkyB bidder?
Competition Commission for sale to the highest BSkyB bidder?
News Corp's BSkyB bid referred to Competition Commission
Jeremy Hunt makes a statement to parliament moments after News Corp withdraws plan to spin off Sky News
It shouldn't be made too easy for Murdoch...
Competition Commission
The decision making body for each inquiry is a group of at least three independent experts, drawn from a wider panel of around 50 appointed members.
Given that Rupert Murdoch is famous for paying to get what he wants from all and sundry, I don't suppose it would be too difficult for him to buy off only 3 people...
News Corp's BSkyB bid referred to Competition Commission
Jeremy Hunt makes a statement to parliament moments after News Corp withdraws plan to spin off Sky News
It shouldn't be made too easy for Murdoch...
Competition Commission
The decision making body for each inquiry is a group of at least three independent experts, drawn from a wider panel of around 50 appointed members.
Given that Rupert Murdoch is famous for paying to get what he wants from all and sundry, I don't suppose it would be too difficult for him to buy off only 3 people...
Bribery cash in brown envelope addressed to John Yates and Andy Hayman from Rupert Murdoch
Bribery cash in brown envelope addressed to John Yates and Andy Hayman from Rupert Murdoch
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Rebekah Brooks deleted photo on Sun and News of the World Dublin HQ
Rebekah Brooks deleted photo on Sun and News of the World Dublin HQ
Nick Davies: Give this man a statue!
Nick Davies: Give this man a statue!
And this is the start of why he deserves to be cast in bronze and facing Parliament.
And this is the start of why he deserves to be cast in bronze and facing Parliament.
Officer who led hacking inquiry keeps Murdoch job
Officer who led hacking inquiry keeps Murdoch job
Crooked ex-cop who led a corrupt investigation to suit Rupert Murdoch's interest got a job with The Times as part of the payment for services received
Comment: He has got to go!
Crooked ex-cop who led a corrupt investigation to suit Rupert Murdoch's interest got a job with The Times as part of the payment for services received Comment: He has got to go!
The World of the News
The World of the News
News of the World towers finally tumbled under the pressure of the phone-hacking scandal
Les Hinton, Rupert Murdoch, Andy Coulson and Rebekah Wade/Brooks in the dock over Murdoch-gate
In seeking to control a primitive people it's all about perception and deception. So-called civilisation has progressed from witch doctor to spin doctor.
It has been claimed that the 3 pillars of democracy are the press, the police and the government. Like the crumbling pillars of the News of the World towers above, Murdoch-gate has shown that the 3 pillars of democracy have been damaged. Corruption has weakened the foundations upon which the media, police and government rests.
If David Cameron cannot speak to the people without employing a communications director to do the talking for him, then he is not a fit and proper person to be Prime Minister.
Murdoch pulling the strings of David Cameron and Jeremy Hunt
Once again the new media has changed the rules and or the game itself.
Murdoch: the network defeats the hierarchy
News of the World towers finally tumbled under the pressure of the phone-hacking scandalLes Hinton, Rupert Murdoch, Andy Coulson and Rebekah Wade/Brooks in the dock over Murdoch-gateIn seeking to control a primitive people it's all about perception and deception. So-called civilisation has progressed from witch doctor to spin doctor.
It has been claimed that the 3 pillars of democracy are the press, the police and the government. Like the crumbling pillars of the News of the World towers above, Murdoch-gate has shown that the 3 pillars of democracy have been damaged. Corruption has weakened the foundations upon which the media, police and government rests.
If David Cameron cannot speak to the people without employing a communications director to do the talking for him, then he is not a fit and proper person to be Prime Minister.
Murdoch pulling the strings of David Cameron and Jeremy HuntOnce again the new media has changed the rules and or the game itself.
Murdoch: the network defeats the hierarchy
Saturday, July 09, 2011
The archbishop and the prisoners
The archbishop and the prisoners
On a prison visit, Rowan Williams shows a wittier, humbler side – and an enthusiasm for unglamorous projects
The archbishop sat on a plain chair in a chapel which was subtly wrong. The glass in the windows was thick and whorled, impossible to see through; and the panes were separated not by lead but thick concrete, in circles rather smaller than a man could squeeze through. The ushers were broad-shouldered men in pressed shirts standing quietly against the walls.
But "this place runs on honesty and truth", said one prisoner.
Comment: Unlike the crooks and liars in Parliament.
On a prison visit, Rowan Williams shows a wittier, humbler side – and an enthusiasm for unglamorous projects
The archbishop sat on a plain chair in a chapel which was subtly wrong. The glass in the windows was thick and whorled, impossible to see through; and the panes were separated not by lead but thick concrete, in circles rather smaller than a man could squeeze through. The ushers were broad-shouldered men in pressed shirts standing quietly against the walls.
But "this place runs on honesty and truth", said one prisoner.
Comment: Unlike the crooks and liars in Parliament.
Lawyers warned over prison mobiles
Lawyers warned over prison mobiles
Press Association, Saturday July 9 2011
Solicitors have been alerted to the risk of "inadvertently" committing a criminal offence by calling clients in prison who are using illegal mobile phones.
The Law Society issued a note to its members warning they could be taking part in criminal activity by ringing the prohibited phones.
According to the guidance, some lawyers may call inmates "without realising the call is being made to an illicitly possessed telephone".
The note reads: "There is a danger that by making a call to a prisoner's unlawfully possessed mobile telephone you may be, either deliberately or inadvertently, committing a criminal offence."
The Society said the illicit possession and use of mobile telephones in prisons is becoming an increasing issue and warned solicitors not to call inmates on mobile phone numbers and to terminate any incoming calls from prisoners using mobiles.
It said: "You should inform the caller that they are committing an offence and that you and your staff will not accept calls in such circumstances."
Illegal mobile phones in prisons have been used to enable drug deals and even organise a murder.
A gang member in Liverpool was killed in a hit organised by an inmate using a illicit mobile phone.
Liam Smith was shot dead outside Merseyside's Altcourse Prison on August 23 2006. He was spotted visiting a friend in the prison by rival gang member, inmate Ryan Lloyd, who used a hidden mobile phone to arrange the hit.
Press Association, Saturday July 9 2011
Solicitors have been alerted to the risk of "inadvertently" committing a criminal offence by calling clients in prison who are using illegal mobile phones.
The Law Society issued a note to its members warning they could be taking part in criminal activity by ringing the prohibited phones.
According to the guidance, some lawyers may call inmates "without realising the call is being made to an illicitly possessed telephone".
The note reads: "There is a danger that by making a call to a prisoner's unlawfully possessed mobile telephone you may be, either deliberately or inadvertently, committing a criminal offence."
The Society said the illicit possession and use of mobile telephones in prisons is becoming an increasing issue and warned solicitors not to call inmates on mobile phone numbers and to terminate any incoming calls from prisoners using mobiles.
It said: "You should inform the caller that they are committing an offence and that you and your staff will not accept calls in such circumstances."
Illegal mobile phones in prisons have been used to enable drug deals and even organise a murder.
A gang member in Liverpool was killed in a hit organised by an inmate using a illicit mobile phone.
Liam Smith was shot dead outside Merseyside's Altcourse Prison on August 23 2006. He was spotted visiting a friend in the prison by rival gang member, inmate Ryan Lloyd, who used a hidden mobile phone to arrange the hit.
The question mark over David Cameron's head
The question mark over David Cameron's head
On 6 October 2005 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights rejected the UK's appeal in the Prisoners Votes Case, Hirst v UK (No2).
On 11 April 2011 in Greens and MT v UK the Chamber of the ECtHR ruled that the UK must amend the law to allow convicted prisoners to vote, and set a time line of 6 months to bring forward proposals.
On 11 October 2011 the 6 month deadline expires.
On 6 July 2011 the following question was asked in the House of Lords:
Asked By Lord Willoughby de Broke
"To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they intend to respond to the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in April that they should make proposals to grant prisoners the vote within six months of that ruling".
The question is straightforward. It should have received a straightforward response.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally): "My Lords, the Government are considering the next steps and Parliament will be the first to be informed when the decisions on the way forward have been reached".
From Hirst v UK (No2) to the Government's time running out it's 6 years and 5 days. I would have thought that that is well long enough for the previous Government and present Government to consider the next steps on the way forward?
Lord Willoughby de Broke: "My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply, but it does not take us very much further".
Lord McNally: "On the question of the commitments made last April, we have promised to make our position clear on 11 October".
On 6 October 2005 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights rejected the UK's appeal in the Prisoners Votes Case, Hirst v UK (No2).
On 11 April 2011 in Greens and MT v UK the Chamber of the ECtHR ruled that the UK must amend the law to allow convicted prisoners to vote, and set a time line of 6 months to bring forward proposals.
On 11 October 2011 the 6 month deadline expires.
On 6 July 2011 the following question was asked in the House of Lords:
Asked By Lord Willoughby de Broke
"To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they intend to respond to the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in April that they should make proposals to grant prisoners the vote within six months of that ruling".
The question is straightforward. It should have received a straightforward response.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally): "My Lords, the Government are considering the next steps and Parliament will be the first to be informed when the decisions on the way forward have been reached".
From Hirst v UK (No2) to the Government's time running out it's 6 years and 5 days. I would have thought that that is well long enough for the previous Government and present Government to consider the next steps on the way forward?
Lord Willoughby de Broke: "My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply, but it does not take us very much further".
Lord McNally: "On the question of the commitments made last April, we have promised to make our position clear on 11 October".
News International: Lifting the veil
News International: Lifting the veil
The ripping back of the curtain has felt liberating
Editorial
guardian.co.uk, Friday 8 July 2011 22.10 BST
There comes a moment in The Wizard of Oz when Dorothy's dog, Toto, tears back a curtain to reveal an old man pulling levers and speaking into a microphone. This extraordinary week has had something of that feel about it. A generation of people in British public life – including politicians, police officers and, yes, journalists – have lived with the increasing power of one person, Rupert Murdoch. He was a bad man to upset, and so most people kept their heads below anything that looked like a parapet. Politicians, in particular, paid court to him and to his lieutenants. They felt they needed Rupert Murdoch's support in order to win power, or stay in power. This suited Mr Murdoch very well: he had things he needed from them, too.
These individual relationships weren't in themselves corrupt, nor is Mr Murdoch the purely malign caricature of some imaginations. But the effect of this power was indeed corrupting. And that is why this week's ripping back of the curtain has felt so liberating. First one politician, then another, has spoken out. Numerous journalists have (at last) joined the fray. The police have rediscovered their purpose. The regulator has (probably too late) located its spine. Both Ed Miliband and David Cameron have made remarkable interventions – the prime minister frankly conceding that he, along with other party leaders, had turned a blind eye to abuses of press power because of the need to curry favour. Mr Miliband has spoken powerfully about the need to challenge all forms of private power – explicitly linking the banks with the more unfettered regions of the media. These, a week ago, would have been suicidal things for any leader to be saying.
Events have been moving so fast that it has been difficult to keep abreast of them. The Press Complaints Commission looks to be dead in the water. The media regulator, Ofcom, has announced that it is now actively keeping a watching brief on the question of whether News Corp passes the "fit and proper person" test to own a broadcasting company – not just the 61% of BSkyB it has its eyes on, but the 39% it already owns. A newspaper has been killed off: another almost certainly waits to be born. The prime minister's former spokesman, Andy Coulson, has been arrested. Two public inquiries have been announced. News Corp's American shareholders have woken up to the potentially toxic damage – or worse - that is being inflicted on the company globally.
Four important matters stand out at the end of this week. One concerns the press in general. The stampede to find tougher forms of regulation is understandable and, indeed, right. But we should avoid a rush towards statutory licensing of "print" journalists, if only because of the difficulties of definition. How would the Telegraph online be regulated in comparison with the Huffington Post? The next concerns what Cameron's appointment of Coulson – ignoring all warnings – says about his judgment. Attention must also focus on his cosy relationship with News International's chief executive, Rebekah Brooks – particularly his contacts at a time when News Corp was bidding for full control of BSkyB.
Next there is that issue of the BSkyB takeover, which is still on track, despite Ofcom's announcement that it is now keeping a close eye on things. It is inconceivable that this could now take place while criminal proceedings are active, and the sooner someone says so the better. Finally there is the question of the cover-up of the truth that undoubtedly took place within News International over the past two and a bit years. James Murdoch's statement this week has partially addressed this, but only partially. There is still little confidence that Mr Murdoch and Ms Brooks are the right people to be overseeing either scrutiny or renewal. And there is a sadness that a newspaper has been sacrificed without any adequate explanation.
The ripping back of the curtain has felt liberating
Editorial
guardian.co.uk, Friday 8 July 2011 22.10 BST
There comes a moment in The Wizard of Oz when Dorothy's dog, Toto, tears back a curtain to reveal an old man pulling levers and speaking into a microphone. This extraordinary week has had something of that feel about it. A generation of people in British public life – including politicians, police officers and, yes, journalists – have lived with the increasing power of one person, Rupert Murdoch. He was a bad man to upset, and so most people kept their heads below anything that looked like a parapet. Politicians, in particular, paid court to him and to his lieutenants. They felt they needed Rupert Murdoch's support in order to win power, or stay in power. This suited Mr Murdoch very well: he had things he needed from them, too.
These individual relationships weren't in themselves corrupt, nor is Mr Murdoch the purely malign caricature of some imaginations. But the effect of this power was indeed corrupting. And that is why this week's ripping back of the curtain has felt so liberating. First one politician, then another, has spoken out. Numerous journalists have (at last) joined the fray. The police have rediscovered their purpose. The regulator has (probably too late) located its spine. Both Ed Miliband and David Cameron have made remarkable interventions – the prime minister frankly conceding that he, along with other party leaders, had turned a blind eye to abuses of press power because of the need to curry favour. Mr Miliband has spoken powerfully about the need to challenge all forms of private power – explicitly linking the banks with the more unfettered regions of the media. These, a week ago, would have been suicidal things for any leader to be saying.
Events have been moving so fast that it has been difficult to keep abreast of them. The Press Complaints Commission looks to be dead in the water. The media regulator, Ofcom, has announced that it is now actively keeping a watching brief on the question of whether News Corp passes the "fit and proper person" test to own a broadcasting company – not just the 61% of BSkyB it has its eyes on, but the 39% it already owns. A newspaper has been killed off: another almost certainly waits to be born. The prime minister's former spokesman, Andy Coulson, has been arrested. Two public inquiries have been announced. News Corp's American shareholders have woken up to the potentially toxic damage – or worse - that is being inflicted on the company globally.
Four important matters stand out at the end of this week. One concerns the press in general. The stampede to find tougher forms of regulation is understandable and, indeed, right. But we should avoid a rush towards statutory licensing of "print" journalists, if only because of the difficulties of definition. How would the Telegraph online be regulated in comparison with the Huffington Post? The next concerns what Cameron's appointment of Coulson – ignoring all warnings – says about his judgment. Attention must also focus on his cosy relationship with News International's chief executive, Rebekah Brooks – particularly his contacts at a time when News Corp was bidding for full control of BSkyB.
Next there is that issue of the BSkyB takeover, which is still on track, despite Ofcom's announcement that it is now keeping a close eye on things. It is inconceivable that this could now take place while criminal proceedings are active, and the sooner someone says so the better. Finally there is the question of the cover-up of the truth that undoubtedly took place within News International over the past two and a bit years. James Murdoch's statement this week has partially addressed this, but only partially. There is still little confidence that Mr Murdoch and Ms Brooks are the right people to be overseeing either scrutiny or renewal. And there is a sadness that a newspaper has been sacrificed without any adequate explanation.
A question mark now hangs over David Cameron's judgement
A question mark now hangs over David Cameron's judgement
Leading article, The Independent, Saturday, 9 July 2011
David Cameron sought a tone of contrition in his dramatic press conference on phone hacking yesterday.
But amidst the expressions of personal responsibility there was also a subtle attempt from the Prime Minister to spread the blame. "We have all been in this together", said Mr Cameron, as he painted a picture of an entire generation of politicians who had got too close to the mighty media empire of Rupert Murdoch.
It is certainly true that previous occupants of Downing Street, including Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, were desperate to win the tycoon's backing and that they did many undignified and dubious things to try to secure it. But this cannot disguise the fact that Mr Cameron was "in this" with the Murdoch regime, in an especially serious way thanks, in particular, to his employment of Andy Coulson, the News of the World editor who resigned in 2007 after one of his journalists was sent to jail for phone hacking. It is of course, the phone hacking affair that exploded, once again, this week with such spectacular consequences.
Mr Cameron trotted out his usual line yesterday that he magnanimously decided to give Mr Coulson a "second chance" when he made him the Conservative Party's communications chief in 2007. Those who err deserve a second chance only when they have owned up to their original misdemeanour. There was widespread scepticism in 2007 over Mr Coulson's claims that he was unaware phone hacking was taking place on his watch. How scrupulously did the Conservative leader challenge Mr Coulson's assurances on this subject? Was Mr Coulson asked about any other potential embarrassments that could emerge from his past? No adequate answers to these questions were provided by the Prime Minister yesterday.
Mr Cameron implied that he could not have been expected to foresee what a disaster the Coulson appointment would become. This is disingenuous. The Prime Minister was warned, both in public and in private, not to take a compromised figure like Mr Coulson with him across the Downing Street threshold. Yet the Prime Minister chose to ignore those warnings. And, as head of communications, Mr Coulson was installed close to the very centre of the Government machine. All this inevitably raises serious questions about Mr Cameron's judgement. And so does the Prime Minister's remarkable description of Mr Coulson as "a friend" yesterday, even as the former editor was about to be arrested.
There are further problems with Mr Cameron's attempt to present the appeasement of the Murdoch press as something for which all politicians are equally guilty. While his predecessors were, at various time, close to the Murdoch regime, Mr Cameron was singularly enthusiastic about cultivating the media group. The Prime Minister declared yesterday that if he had been in a position to receive the offer of resignation of the News International chief executive, Rebekah Brooks, he would have accepted it. Yet not long ago Mr Cameron was apparently a close personal friend of Ms Brooks. The pair are said to have gone riding together. Mr Cameron attended a dinner party at Ms Brooks' Oxfordshire home over Christmas, a party at which the senior News Corp executive James Murdoch was also present. And this was at a time when the Government was considering the media company's controverisal bid to acquire the broadcaster BSkyB.
Worse, Mr Cameron's Government appears to have granted special favours to the Murdoch organisation. In January, Ofcom recommended that the BSkyB bid should be referred to the Competition Commission. But the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, decided to allow the company to avoid this referral in return for an agreement to sell off Sky News. It is inconceivable that any other organisation would have been offered such regulatory leeway.
Mr Cameron is right to argue that a great many politicians, from Labour as well as the Conservatives, must account for the manner in which they have bent their knee to the power of the Murdoch media. But the Prime Minister should be in no doubt: it is he who has the most explaining to do.
Leading article, The Independent, Saturday, 9 July 2011
David Cameron sought a tone of contrition in his dramatic press conference on phone hacking yesterday.
But amidst the expressions of personal responsibility there was also a subtle attempt from the Prime Minister to spread the blame. "We have all been in this together", said Mr Cameron, as he painted a picture of an entire generation of politicians who had got too close to the mighty media empire of Rupert Murdoch.
It is certainly true that previous occupants of Downing Street, including Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, were desperate to win the tycoon's backing and that they did many undignified and dubious things to try to secure it. But this cannot disguise the fact that Mr Cameron was "in this" with the Murdoch regime, in an especially serious way thanks, in particular, to his employment of Andy Coulson, the News of the World editor who resigned in 2007 after one of his journalists was sent to jail for phone hacking. It is of course, the phone hacking affair that exploded, once again, this week with such spectacular consequences.
Mr Cameron trotted out his usual line yesterday that he magnanimously decided to give Mr Coulson a "second chance" when he made him the Conservative Party's communications chief in 2007. Those who err deserve a second chance only when they have owned up to their original misdemeanour. There was widespread scepticism in 2007 over Mr Coulson's claims that he was unaware phone hacking was taking place on his watch. How scrupulously did the Conservative leader challenge Mr Coulson's assurances on this subject? Was Mr Coulson asked about any other potential embarrassments that could emerge from his past? No adequate answers to these questions were provided by the Prime Minister yesterday.
Mr Cameron implied that he could not have been expected to foresee what a disaster the Coulson appointment would become. This is disingenuous. The Prime Minister was warned, both in public and in private, not to take a compromised figure like Mr Coulson with him across the Downing Street threshold. Yet the Prime Minister chose to ignore those warnings. And, as head of communications, Mr Coulson was installed close to the very centre of the Government machine. All this inevitably raises serious questions about Mr Cameron's judgement. And so does the Prime Minister's remarkable description of Mr Coulson as "a friend" yesterday, even as the former editor was about to be arrested.
There are further problems with Mr Cameron's attempt to present the appeasement of the Murdoch press as something for which all politicians are equally guilty. While his predecessors were, at various time, close to the Murdoch regime, Mr Cameron was singularly enthusiastic about cultivating the media group. The Prime Minister declared yesterday that if he had been in a position to receive the offer of resignation of the News International chief executive, Rebekah Brooks, he would have accepted it. Yet not long ago Mr Cameron was apparently a close personal friend of Ms Brooks. The pair are said to have gone riding together. Mr Cameron attended a dinner party at Ms Brooks' Oxfordshire home over Christmas, a party at which the senior News Corp executive James Murdoch was also present. And this was at a time when the Government was considering the media company's controverisal bid to acquire the broadcaster BSkyB.
Worse, Mr Cameron's Government appears to have granted special favours to the Murdoch organisation. In January, Ofcom recommended that the BSkyB bid should be referred to the Competition Commission. But the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, decided to allow the company to avoid this referral in return for an agreement to sell off Sky News. It is inconceivable that any other organisation would have been offered such regulatory leeway.
Mr Cameron is right to argue that a great many politicians, from Labour as well as the Conservatives, must account for the manner in which they have bent their knee to the power of the Murdoch media. But the Prime Minister should be in no doubt: it is he who has the most explaining to do.
Prisoners voting: The deadline approaches
House of Lords Main Chamber Debates 6 July 2011
Prisoners: Voting
Question
3.14 pm
Asked By Lord Willoughby de Broke
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they intend to respond to the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in April that they should make proposals to grant prisoners the vote within six months of that ruling.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally): My Lords, the Government are considering the next steps and Parliament will be the first to be informed when the decisions on the way forward have been reached.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply, but it does not take us very much further. In February this year, the other place voted by a majority of 212 against giving prisoners the vote, and during the passage of the EU Bill the Government made great play of the sovereignty of Parliament. Which body is actually sovereign? Is it the UK Parliament or the European Court of Human Rights?
Lord McNally: On the question of the commitments made last April, we have promised to make our position clear on 11 October. On the question of sovereignty, of course this Parliament remains sovereign. In many cases over the years, Britain has signed up to conventions and treaties as the will of Parliament, and that is still the case with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, as the United Kingdom is a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, are we not bound to accept the jurisdiction of the court unless we seek to withdraw from it, which would hardly be in the interests of this country? However, if there is a widespread concern, not only in this country but in other countries, about the jurisprudence of the court, is it not more sensible to enter into discussions about possible amendments to the convention on human rights rather than its break-up and withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the court?
Lord McNally: One reassuring thing is that I am not aware of any party represented in this House that is looking for us either to withdraw from the convention or to see it break up. My noble friend is right: we are looking to see whether we can put forward a proper and sensible programme of reform for the court. My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor spelled out our agenda, as it were, in a speech in Turkey a few months ago, and we will be taking that agenda forward when we take up the chairmanship of the Council of Europe in November.
Lord Anderson of Swansea: Does the Minister agree that while there may be a case for asking for an extension of time while awaiting the Grand Chamber judgment in the Scoppola case, which also involves prisoners’ rights, and a case for negotiating with the court on the broad margin of appreciation allowed in the Hirst case, there is no case whatever for defying the court, as a number of Members of the other place seem rather keen to do, particularly at a time when the UK will assume the chairmanship of the Council of Ministers in November? What sort of precedent would that give to defaulting members such as Turkey and Russia?
Lord McNally: The noble Lord makes the key point in all this. It looks rather macho to say that we are going to defy the court, but one of the real benefits of the convention over the past 60 years has been that it has levered up respect for human rights right across Europe and continues to do so. If I, any of my noble friends, or any member of the Opposition were to meet marginal observers of human rights and put pressure on them, our words would not carry much weight if they were able to say, “Well, when it got tough for you to accept the decisions, you did not accept them”.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, does my noble friend believe that it is fair and right that prisoners convicted of crimes should be allowed to vote, whereas Peers in this House are not?
Lord McNally: There is a saying, “You can tell a man who boozes by the company that he chooses”. I am well aware of the reasons why Peers cannot vote, because we already have a vote in Parliament. I do not think that that rules out the case for prisoner voting—it is an ongoing debate and the Government are studying the various issues. Another reason why the Government are continuing to have to study those issues is that there are changes in the court’s position. The Italian case that the noble Lord referred to means that again there is a slight change in the court’s view on these matters, which may change future actions.
Lord Tomlinson: The noble Lord speaks very clearly and enthusiastically about our responsibilities of adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights. Instead of concentrating so much on this micro case of prisoner voting, will he concentrate equally on the macro problem of making the court work? The biggest problem at the European Court of Human Rights is the backlog of cases—over 100,000 cases—and the real reason for the backlog is because the court is being starved of money by the members who have to finance it. Will he make sure that that problem is now seriously addressed so that the court can get on with its real work on the big scale?
Lord McNally: I am not sure I entirely agree that it is simply a lack of money or budget. I know that the noble Lord has made this point about the financing of the court before, but that is why my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor has made this such an important part of our presidency of the Council of Europe; as the noble Lord says, any court that has a backlog of over 100,000 cases ain’t working. We are going to do our best, and we are gathering support for the idea of trying, to get some fundamental reform of the court.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if we deny all prisoners one of the most basic rights of citizenship—that is, the vote—they are less likely to fulfil their responsibilities of citizenship on release?
Lord McNally: That is an opinion that, quite frankly, I share. Perhaps the noble Baroness could come down the Corridor with me and we will try to convince David Davis and Jack Straw.
Prisoners: Voting
Question
3.14 pm
Asked By Lord Willoughby de Broke
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they intend to respond to the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in April that they should make proposals to grant prisoners the vote within six months of that ruling.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally): My Lords, the Government are considering the next steps and Parliament will be the first to be informed when the decisions on the way forward have been reached.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply, but it does not take us very much further. In February this year, the other place voted by a majority of 212 against giving prisoners the vote, and during the passage of the EU Bill the Government made great play of the sovereignty of Parliament. Which body is actually sovereign? Is it the UK Parliament or the European Court of Human Rights?
Lord McNally: On the question of the commitments made last April, we have promised to make our position clear on 11 October. On the question of sovereignty, of course this Parliament remains sovereign. In many cases over the years, Britain has signed up to conventions and treaties as the will of Parliament, and that is still the case with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, as the United Kingdom is a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, are we not bound to accept the jurisdiction of the court unless we seek to withdraw from it, which would hardly be in the interests of this country? However, if there is a widespread concern, not only in this country but in other countries, about the jurisprudence of the court, is it not more sensible to enter into discussions about possible amendments to the convention on human rights rather than its break-up and withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the court?
Lord McNally: One reassuring thing is that I am not aware of any party represented in this House that is looking for us either to withdraw from the convention or to see it break up. My noble friend is right: we are looking to see whether we can put forward a proper and sensible programme of reform for the court. My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor spelled out our agenda, as it were, in a speech in Turkey a few months ago, and we will be taking that agenda forward when we take up the chairmanship of the Council of Europe in November.
Lord Anderson of Swansea: Does the Minister agree that while there may be a case for asking for an extension of time while awaiting the Grand Chamber judgment in the Scoppola case, which also involves prisoners’ rights, and a case for negotiating with the court on the broad margin of appreciation allowed in the Hirst case, there is no case whatever for defying the court, as a number of Members of the other place seem rather keen to do, particularly at a time when the UK will assume the chairmanship of the Council of Ministers in November? What sort of precedent would that give to defaulting members such as Turkey and Russia?
Lord McNally: The noble Lord makes the key point in all this. It looks rather macho to say that we are going to defy the court, but one of the real benefits of the convention over the past 60 years has been that it has levered up respect for human rights right across Europe and continues to do so. If I, any of my noble friends, or any member of the Opposition were to meet marginal observers of human rights and put pressure on them, our words would not carry much weight if they were able to say, “Well, when it got tough for you to accept the decisions, you did not accept them”.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, does my noble friend believe that it is fair and right that prisoners convicted of crimes should be allowed to vote, whereas Peers in this House are not?
Lord McNally: There is a saying, “You can tell a man who boozes by the company that he chooses”. I am well aware of the reasons why Peers cannot vote, because we already have a vote in Parliament. I do not think that that rules out the case for prisoner voting—it is an ongoing debate and the Government are studying the various issues. Another reason why the Government are continuing to have to study those issues is that there are changes in the court’s position. The Italian case that the noble Lord referred to means that again there is a slight change in the court’s view on these matters, which may change future actions.
Lord Tomlinson: The noble Lord speaks very clearly and enthusiastically about our responsibilities of adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights. Instead of concentrating so much on this micro case of prisoner voting, will he concentrate equally on the macro problem of making the court work? The biggest problem at the European Court of Human Rights is the backlog of cases—over 100,000 cases—and the real reason for the backlog is because the court is being starved of money by the members who have to finance it. Will he make sure that that problem is now seriously addressed so that the court can get on with its real work on the big scale?
Lord McNally: I am not sure I entirely agree that it is simply a lack of money or budget. I know that the noble Lord has made this point about the financing of the court before, but that is why my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor has made this such an important part of our presidency of the Council of Europe; as the noble Lord says, any court that has a backlog of over 100,000 cases ain’t working. We are going to do our best, and we are gathering support for the idea of trying, to get some fundamental reform of the court.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if we deny all prisoners one of the most basic rights of citizenship—that is, the vote—they are less likely to fulfil their responsibilities of citizenship on release?
Lord McNally: That is an opinion that, quite frankly, I share. Perhaps the noble Baroness could come down the Corridor with me and we will try to convince David Davis and Jack Straw.
Justice Minister Warns Against 'Macho' Defiance On Prisoner Votes
Justice Minister Warns Against 'Macho' Defiance On Prisoner Votes
PRESS ASSOCIATION -- Defying European judges over giving the vote to prisoners may look "macho" but would weaken the United Kingdom's ability to put pressure on other countries, a justice minister said.
Lord McNally, who is also the leader of Liberal Democrat peers, warned against refusing to implement the ruling from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and signalled his support for giving prisoners the vote.
The Government is still deciding whether to comply with an ECHR ruling that it was unlawful to prevent all prisoners from voting.
Earlier this year, following a debate initiated by Labour ex-home secretary Jack Straw and Tory ex-minister David Davis, MPs voted overwhelmingly to oppose the ECHR decision, which the previous government also avoided implementing.
Lord McNally told peers at question time: "It all looks rather macho to say we are going to defy the courts, but one of the real benefits of the convention over the last 60 years has been that it has levered up respect for human rights right across Europe.
"If I, or any of my noble friends, or any of the Opposition meet people from, let's say, marginal observers of human rights and put pressure on them our words won't carry much weight if they are able to say 'well when it got tough for you to accept the decisions you didn't accept them'."
Labour former MP Lord Anderson of Swansea had said that although there may be a case for delaying the ruling there was "no case whatsoever for defying the court as it seems a number of Members of the Commons want to do".
"What sort of precedent would that give to defaulting members such as Turkey and Russia?" he asked.
And Labour's Baroness Lister of Buttersett asked: "Do you agree that if we deny all prisoners one of the most basic rights of citizenship - that is the vote - they are less likely to fulfil their responsibilities of citizenship on release?"
Lord McNally told her: "It is an opinion that, quite frankly, I share. Perhaps you could come down the corridor with me (to the Commons) and we will try and convince David Davis and Jack Straw."
PRESS ASSOCIATION -- Defying European judges over giving the vote to prisoners may look "macho" but would weaken the United Kingdom's ability to put pressure on other countries, a justice minister said.
Lord McNally, who is also the leader of Liberal Democrat peers, warned against refusing to implement the ruling from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and signalled his support for giving prisoners the vote.
The Government is still deciding whether to comply with an ECHR ruling that it was unlawful to prevent all prisoners from voting.
Earlier this year, following a debate initiated by Labour ex-home secretary Jack Straw and Tory ex-minister David Davis, MPs voted overwhelmingly to oppose the ECHR decision, which the previous government also avoided implementing.
Lord McNally told peers at question time: "It all looks rather macho to say we are going to defy the courts, but one of the real benefits of the convention over the last 60 years has been that it has levered up respect for human rights right across Europe.
"If I, or any of my noble friends, or any of the Opposition meet people from, let's say, marginal observers of human rights and put pressure on them our words won't carry much weight if they are able to say 'well when it got tough for you to accept the decisions you didn't accept them'."
Labour former MP Lord Anderson of Swansea had said that although there may be a case for delaying the ruling there was "no case whatsoever for defying the court as it seems a number of Members of the Commons want to do".
"What sort of precedent would that give to defaulting members such as Turkey and Russia?" he asked.
And Labour's Baroness Lister of Buttersett asked: "Do you agree that if we deny all prisoners one of the most basic rights of citizenship - that is the vote - they are less likely to fulfil their responsibilities of citizenship on release?"
Lord McNally told her: "It is an opinion that, quite frankly, I share. Perhaps you could come down the corridor with me (to the Commons) and we will try and convince David Davis and Jack Straw."
Friday, July 08, 2011
TOWARDS A EUROPEAN LAW? LORD NEUBERGER OF ABBOTSBURY, MASTER OF THE ROLLS Berlin Lecture July 2011
TOWARDS A EUROPEAN LAW? LORD NEUBERGER OF ABBOTSBURY, MASTER OF THE ROLLS Berlin Lecture July 2011
TOWARDS A EUROPEAN LAW? LORD NEUBERGER OF ABBOTSBURY, MASTER OF THE ROLLS Berlin Lecture July 2011
TOWARDS A EUROPEAN LAW? LORD NEUBERGER OF ABBOTSBURY, MASTER OF THE ROLLS Berlin Lecture July 2011
Thursday, July 07, 2011
What a Misery Louise Casey is!
What a Misery Louise Casey is!
The Victims' Commissioner, Louise Casey, will today call for a new law which will put into statute rights for families bereaved by homicide.
We already have the Human Rights Act 1998, it is designed to give a remedy for the victims of human rights abuse by public authorities. Has she taken up the issue of convicted prisoners who are victims by being denied their human right to vote? Has she heck as like! Clearly, the Victims' Commissioner, Louise Casey, is not fit for purpose!
The Victims' Commissioner, Louise Casey, will today call for a new law which will put into statute rights for families bereaved by homicide.
We already have the Human Rights Act 1998, it is designed to give a remedy for the victims of human rights abuse by public authorities. Has she taken up the issue of convicted prisoners who are victims by being denied their human right to vote? Has she heck as like! Clearly, the Victims' Commissioner, Louise Casey, is not fit for purpose!
Prisons agency fined after Aboriginal 'cooked to death'
Prisons agency fined after Aboriginal 'cooked to death'
An Australian prisons agency has been fined £190,000 (Aus$285,000) over the death of an Aboriginal who was allegedly "cooked" to death in the back of a prison van.
Known only as Mr Ward for Aboriginal cultural reasons, the 46-year-old elder died from heatstroke in the sweltering outback of Western Australia state during a four-hour journey in 2008 in a van with broken air-conditioning.
He suffered third-degree burns as temperatures in the vehicle's rear compartment soared to up to 50C (122F) on the trip to a drink-driving hearing.
The state's corrective services department pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that Mr Ward was not exposed to what were ultimately fatal hazards, and on Thursday it was handed the fine by the Kalgoorlie Magistrates Court.
An Australian prisons agency has been fined £190,000 (Aus$285,000) over the death of an Aboriginal who was allegedly "cooked" to death in the back of a prison van.
Known only as Mr Ward for Aboriginal cultural reasons, the 46-year-old elder died from heatstroke in the sweltering outback of Western Australia state during a four-hour journey in 2008 in a van with broken air-conditioning.
He suffered third-degree burns as temperatures in the vehicle's rear compartment soared to up to 50C (122F) on the trip to a drink-driving hearing.
The state's corrective services department pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that Mr Ward was not exposed to what were ultimately fatal hazards, and on Thursday it was handed the fine by the Kalgoorlie Magistrates Court.
Going up in the world
Going up in the world
I received a letter from the DWP this morning informing me that my last payment of £64.10 per week JSA has been paid into my bank account.
I look forward to my first payment of £137.35 per week for pension credit to be paid in...
I received a letter from the DWP this morning informing me that my last payment of £64.10 per week JSA has been paid into my bank account.
I look forward to my first payment of £137.35 per week for pension credit to be paid in...
Jailed MP says he was 'trashed on internet'
Jailed MP says he was 'trashed on internet'
By Nigel Morris, Deputy Political Editor
Thursday, 7 July 2011
A former MP jailed for expenses fraud has raised doubts from behind bars over the fairness of his conviction.
Jim Devine, who was imprisoned for 16 months for falsely claiming £8,385, queried whether the jurors in his case had obeyed an instruction not to look for information about him online.
In a letter to the prisoners' newspaper, Converse, he said: "Along with my parliamentary colleagues, my public and private reputation was trashed on the internet.
"At the start of my trial the judge told the jury not to trawl the internet looking for stories about myself – does anyone believe that every juror followed that instruction?
"I know several senior MPs that are very concerned about the ability of an individual to receive a fair trial in the internet age."
Devine, 58, who stood down at the last election as the Labour MP for Livingston, was found guilty in February of dishonestly claiming for cleaning and printing work by submitting fake invoices. The trial judge, Mr Justice Saunders, said the former MP had been "lying in significant parts of the evidence he gave" and had set about "defrauding the public purse in a calculated and deliberate way".
Devine was initially sent to Belmarsh prison, south-east London, before being transferred to the lower-security Standford Hill in Kent.
He claimed he knew of at least 10 inmates at Belmarsh who thought "tabloid reporting" had jeopardised their chances of a fair trial.
By Nigel Morris, Deputy Political Editor
Thursday, 7 July 2011
A former MP jailed for expenses fraud has raised doubts from behind bars over the fairness of his conviction.
Jim Devine, who was imprisoned for 16 months for falsely claiming £8,385, queried whether the jurors in his case had obeyed an instruction not to look for information about him online.
In a letter to the prisoners' newspaper, Converse, he said: "Along with my parliamentary colleagues, my public and private reputation was trashed on the internet.
"At the start of my trial the judge told the jury not to trawl the internet looking for stories about myself – does anyone believe that every juror followed that instruction?
"I know several senior MPs that are very concerned about the ability of an individual to receive a fair trial in the internet age."
Devine, 58, who stood down at the last election as the Labour MP for Livingston, was found guilty in February of dishonestly claiming for cleaning and printing work by submitting fake invoices. The trial judge, Mr Justice Saunders, said the former MP had been "lying in significant parts of the evidence he gave" and had set about "defrauding the public purse in a calculated and deliberate way".
Devine was initially sent to Belmarsh prison, south-east London, before being transferred to the lower-security Standford Hill in Kent.
He claimed he knew of at least 10 inmates at Belmarsh who thought "tabloid reporting" had jeopardised their chances of a fair trial.
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
No job but I'm no longer unemployed, I'm past it!
No job but I'm no longer unemployed, I'm past it!
Last week I signed on for my Job Seeker's Allowance for the last time and signing off yesterday.
Today, 6/7/2011, is my first day of elligibility for pension credits.
Last week I signed on for my Job Seeker's Allowance for the last time and signing off yesterday.
Today, 6/7/2011, is my first day of elligibility for pension credits.
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
Sir Nicolas Bratza elected President of the European Court of Human Rights
Sir Nicolas Bratza elected President of the European Court of Human Rights
Sir Nicolas Bratza
The European Court of Human Rights elected Sir Nicolas Bratza (British) as its new President. He will take office on 4 November 2011. The President was elected by secret ballot by the Court’s 47 judges. Sir Nicolas Bratza succeeds Jean-Paul Costa (French), whose mandate will come to an end on 3 November 2011, because he has reached the age limit fixed by the European Convention on Human Rights.
Sir Nicolas was born on 3 March 1945. He studied law at the University of Oxford. After qualifying as a lawyer, he was appointed Junior Counsel of the Crown and then Queen’s Counsel. In 1993 he was elected a Bencher at Lincoln’s Inn and subsequently appointed a Recorder at the Crown Court. He was made a High Court judge in 1998. Sir Nicolas was a member of the European Commission of Human Rights between 1993 and 1998. He has been a judge at the European Court of Human Rights since 1 November 1998 and Section President since 2001 (he was also Section President between 1998 and 2000). Since 19 January 2007 he has also been Vice-President of the Court.
Sir Nicolas BratzaThe European Court of Human Rights elected Sir Nicolas Bratza (British) as its new President. He will take office on 4 November 2011. The President was elected by secret ballot by the Court’s 47 judges. Sir Nicolas Bratza succeeds Jean-Paul Costa (French), whose mandate will come to an end on 3 November 2011, because he has reached the age limit fixed by the European Convention on Human Rights.
Sir Nicolas was born on 3 March 1945. He studied law at the University of Oxford. After qualifying as a lawyer, he was appointed Junior Counsel of the Crown and then Queen’s Counsel. In 1993 he was elected a Bencher at Lincoln’s Inn and subsequently appointed a Recorder at the Crown Court. He was made a High Court judge in 1998. Sir Nicolas was a member of the European Commission of Human Rights between 1993 and 1998. He has been a judge at the European Court of Human Rights since 1 November 1998 and Section President since 2001 (he was also Section President between 1998 and 2000). Since 19 January 2007 he has also been Vice-President of the Court.
Woman 'tried to sneak inmate out of prison in suitcase'
Woman 'tried to sneak inmate out of prison in suitcase'
A woman was caught trying to sneak her common-law-husband out of a Mexican prison in a suitcase following a conjugal visit, according to police.
8:11AM BST 05 Jul 2011
Staff at the prison in Chetumal in the Caribbean state of Quintana Roo noticed that the woman seemed nervous and was pulling a black, wheeled suitcase that looked bulky, said a police spokesman.
Prison guards checked the bag of 19-year-old Maria del Mar Arjona and found inmate Juan Ramirez Tijerina curled up inside in the fetal position, he added.
The prisoner is serving a 20-year sentence for a 2007 conviction for illegal weapons possession.
Arjona was arrested and charges are pending.
The attempted escape comes months after police discovered a bar at prison in northern Mexico that served beer, tequila and vodka to inmates.
Security at Mexican state prisons is notoriously lax. Jailbreaks are common, inmates are often found to be directing criminal operations from behind bars, and corrupt guards are often found to be involved.
A woman was caught trying to sneak her common-law-husband out of a Mexican prison in a suitcase following a conjugal visit, according to police.
8:11AM BST 05 Jul 2011
Staff at the prison in Chetumal in the Caribbean state of Quintana Roo noticed that the woman seemed nervous and was pulling a black, wheeled suitcase that looked bulky, said a police spokesman.
Prison guards checked the bag of 19-year-old Maria del Mar Arjona and found inmate Juan Ramirez Tijerina curled up inside in the fetal position, he added.
The prisoner is serving a 20-year sentence for a 2007 conviction for illegal weapons possession.
Arjona was arrested and charges are pending.
The attempted escape comes months after police discovered a bar at prison in northern Mexico that served beer, tequila and vodka to inmates.
Security at Mexican state prisons is notoriously lax. Jailbreaks are common, inmates are often found to be directing criminal operations from behind bars, and corrupt guards are often found to be involved.
Gold and gems worth up to £14 billion unearthed from Indian temple
Gold and gems worth up to £14 billion unearthed from Indian temple
A treasure trove of gold, diamonds and precious stones worth billions of pounds has been recovered from secret underground chambers beneath a 16th century Indian temple.
By Rahul Bedi, New Delhi
11:24PM BST 04 Jul 2011
The dazzling hoard – which includes coins minted when the East India Company dominated trade with the sub-continent – has lain untouched for nearly 140 years.
The value of the collection has been estimated at up to £14 billion, with new discoveries still to be catalogued. Antiquarians described the treasure's worth as "astronomical".
Highlights include gold and silver bullion dating back to the Napoleonic era, precious stones wrapped in silk bundles, thousands of intricate pieces of diamond and emerald-studded jewellery.
A treasure trove of gold, diamonds and precious stones worth billions of pounds has been recovered from secret underground chambers beneath a 16th century Indian temple.
By Rahul Bedi, New Delhi
11:24PM BST 04 Jul 2011
The dazzling hoard – which includes coins minted when the East India Company dominated trade with the sub-continent – has lain untouched for nearly 140 years.
The value of the collection has been estimated at up to £14 billion, with new discoveries still to be catalogued. Antiquarians described the treasure's worth as "astronomical".
Highlights include gold and silver bullion dating back to the Napoleonic era, precious stones wrapped in silk bundles, thousands of intricate pieces of diamond and emerald-studded jewellery.
Monday, July 04, 2011
British judge elected president of European rights court
British judge elected president of European rights court
04 July 2011 | 19:37 | FOCUS News Agency
Home / European Union
Strasbourg. British judge Nicolas Bratza was on Monday elected president of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, AFP reported.
Bratza was chosen by his peers to replace Frenchman Jean-Paul Costa in November, when the incumbent would have reached the maximum age of 70 set for the job.
Bratza, 66, has served on the Strasbourg-based court since 1998, and is currently the tribunal's vice president.
He is the son of the celebrated Serbian-born violinist Milan Bratza, who moved to London after World War I.
Bratza's election to the top of the European court comes following months of tension between the court and the British government.
At the end of February, British Justice Minister Kenneth Clarke said London wanted major reforms at Europe's human rights tribunal after it ruled that Britain must give prisoners the right to vote within six months.
British Prime Minister David Cameron vehemently opposed the ruling, and said the idea of letting convicted criminals vote "made him sick."
04 July 2011 | 19:37 | FOCUS News Agency
Home / European Union
Strasbourg. British judge Nicolas Bratza was on Monday elected president of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, AFP reported.
Bratza was chosen by his peers to replace Frenchman Jean-Paul Costa in November, when the incumbent would have reached the maximum age of 70 set for the job.
Bratza, 66, has served on the Strasbourg-based court since 1998, and is currently the tribunal's vice president.
He is the son of the celebrated Serbian-born violinist Milan Bratza, who moved to London after World War I.
Bratza's election to the top of the European court comes following months of tension between the court and the British government.
At the end of February, British Justice Minister Kenneth Clarke said London wanted major reforms at Europe's human rights tribunal after it ruled that Britain must give prisoners the right to vote within six months.
British Prime Minister David Cameron vehemently opposed the ruling, and said the idea of letting convicted criminals vote "made him sick."
Emergency Law To Reverse Police Bail Ruling
Emergency Law To Reverse Police Bail Ruling
The Government is to bring in emergency legislation to reverse a controversial legal ruling on police bail.
The initial decision was made by a district judge and backed by a judicial review at the High Court.
The move meant officers can no longer bail suspects for more than four days without either charging or releasing them.
The House of Commons will debate the bill on Thursday, so it can go to the House of Lords early next week.
The move to rush through new laws comes after ministers said that waiting for the result of an appeal to the Supreme Court would take too long.
A row over the issue started when district judge Jonathan Finestein at Salford Magistrates Court refused a routine application from Greater Manchester Police for a warrant for further detention of a murder suspect.
High Court judge Mr Justice McCombe backed the ruling in a judicial review and said that the time spent on police bail counted towards the maximum 96-hour limit of pre-charge detention.
For the last 25 years, only the time spent being questioned or in police custody has counted towards that limit.
Many suspects have been released on bail for months before being called back for further interviews.
Home Secretary Theresa May said: "There is a clear need to act fast to make sure we put things right for the police.
"There is no question that I will always give the police the tools and powers they need to catch criminals, investigate crimes and protect the public."
Policing Minister Nick Herbert admitted last week that officials were told of the oral judgement on June 17 and alerted ministers on June 24.
Comment: How is it that the government can act so fast on this and yet so slow on the Prisoners Votes Case?
The Government is to bring in emergency legislation to reverse a controversial legal ruling on police bail.
The initial decision was made by a district judge and backed by a judicial review at the High Court.
The move meant officers can no longer bail suspects for more than four days without either charging or releasing them.
The House of Commons will debate the bill on Thursday, so it can go to the House of Lords early next week.
The move to rush through new laws comes after ministers said that waiting for the result of an appeal to the Supreme Court would take too long.
A row over the issue started when district judge Jonathan Finestein at Salford Magistrates Court refused a routine application from Greater Manchester Police for a warrant for further detention of a murder suspect.
High Court judge Mr Justice McCombe backed the ruling in a judicial review and said that the time spent on police bail counted towards the maximum 96-hour limit of pre-charge detention.
For the last 25 years, only the time spent being questioned or in police custody has counted towards that limit.
Many suspects have been released on bail for months before being called back for further interviews.
Home Secretary Theresa May said: "There is a clear need to act fast to make sure we put things right for the police.
"There is no question that I will always give the police the tools and powers they need to catch criminals, investigate crimes and protect the public."
Policing Minister Nick Herbert admitted last week that officials were told of the oral judgement on June 17 and alerted ministers on June 24.
Comment: How is it that the government can act so fast on this and yet so slow on the Prisoners Votes Case?
Don't make prisoners victims by a Victim Tax!
Don't make prisoners victims by a Victim Tax!
The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. "The Bill’s provisions cover a diverse range of issues".
Could it be that the purpose behind a Bill covering a diverse range of issues is to hide something in the middle of it all, like something the Coalition does not wish to be the subject of too close scrutiny?
For example...
"Prisoners’ pay and employment: The Bill gives the Secretary of State new powers to make prison rules about prisoners’ employment, pay and deductions from their pay. The intention is that prisoners should make payments which would support victims of crime".
The relevant section of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill is below.
CHAPTER 5
PRISONERS ETC
103 Employment in prisons: deductions etc from payments to prisoners
(1) In section 47 of the Prison Act 1952 (power of Secretary of State to make rules for the regulation and management of prisons etc), in subsection (1) omit “employment,”.
(2) After that subsection insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may make rules about—
(a) the employment of persons who are required to be detained in
secure training centres or young offender institutions;
(b) the making of payments to such persons in respect of work or other activities undertaken by them, or in respect of their unemployment.”
(3) In that section, after subsection (5) insert—
“(6) Rules made under this section may—
(a) make different provision for different cases;
(b) contain supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or
saving provision.”
(4) After that section insert—
“47A Rules about employment in prisons etc
(1) The Secretary of State may make rules about—
(a) the employment of prisoners;
(b) the making of payments to prisoners in respect of work or other activities undertaken by them, or in respect of their unemployment.
(2) The Secretary of State may make rules about the making, by the governor of the prison in which a prisoner is detained or the Secretary of State, of reductions in payments to the prisoner in respect of—
(a) work undertaken by the prisoner,
(b) other activities undertaken by the prisoner, or
(c) the prisoner’s unemployment,
where those payments are made by or on behalf of the Secretary of State.
(3) Rules under subsection (2) may make provision, in a case where reductions are made by the governor, for amounts generated by the reductions to be used by the governor—
(a) for making payments for the benefit of victims or communities;
(b) for making payments for the purposes of the rehabilitation of offenders;
(c) for other prescribed purposes.
(4) Rules under subsection (2) may make provision, in a case where reductions are made by the governor—
(a) for amounts generated by the reductions to be used by the governor for making payments into an account of a prescribed kind;
(b) for the administration of the account;
(c) for the making of payments out of the account to a prisoner before or after the prisoner’s release on fulfilment by the prisoner of prescribed conditions.
(5) Rules under subsection (2) that make provision for amounts generated by reductions to be used to make payments may provide for such payments to be made after the deduction of amounts of a prescribed description.
(6) The Secretary of State may make rules about the making of deductions from, or
the imposition of levies on, payments to a prisoner in respect of—
(a) work undertaken by the prisoner,
(b) other activities undertaken by the prisoner, or
(c) the prisoner’s unemployment, where those payments are made otherwise than by or on behalf of the Secretary of State.
(7) Rules under subsection (6)—
(a) may provide for deductions to be made, or levies to be imposed, by the governor of the prison or by the Secretary of State;
(b) must provide that, if the governor makes the deductions or imposes the levies, the governor must pay amounts generated to the Secretary of State.
(8) The Secretary of State may make rules providing—
(a) for the making of payments by the Secretary of State into an account of a prescribed kind;
(b) for the administration of the account;
(c) for the making of payments out of the account to a prisoner before or after the prisoner’s release on fulfilment by the prisoner of prescribed conditions.
(9) Rules under this section may—
(a) make different provision for different cases;
(b) contain supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or saving provision.
(10) In this section references to the governor of a prison include—
(a) the director of a contracted out prison within the meaning of Part 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and
(b) an officer of a prison who may exercise the functions of a governor in accordance with rules under section 47 or this section.
(11) In this section—
“prescribed” means prescribed by rules under this section;
“prisoner” includes a prisoner on temporary release.”
(5) In section 66(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (procedure applying to rules under section 47 of the Prison Act 1952) for “of the said Act of 1952” substitute “or section 47A of the Prison Act 1952”.
(6) In section 4 of the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996 (interpretation)—
(a) omit subsection (2) (application of the Act to England and Wales), and
(b) in subsection (3) (application of the Act to Scotland), for “In the
application of this Act to Scotland” substitute “In this Act”.
(7) In section 5 of that Act (short title, commencement and extent), for subsection
(3) substitute—
“(3) This Act extends to Scotland only.”
(8) Before the coming into force of section 59 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (abolition of power to provide remand centres), section 47(1A) of the Prison Act 1952 has effect as if it referred also to persons required to be detained in remand centres.
(9) Before the coming into force of section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (abolition of sentences of detention in a young offender institution, custody for life etc)—
(a) section 47(1A) of the Prison Act 1952 has effect as if the references to persons required to be detained in young offender institutions were to persons aged under 18 required to be so detained, and
(b) section 47A of that Act has effect as if—
(i) “prison” included a young offender institution, and
(ii) “prisoner” included a person aged 18 or over who is required to be detained in a young offender institution.
(10) The Secretary of State may make such payments to such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with measures that appear to the Secretary of State to be intended to—
(a) rehabilitate offenders,
(b) prevent re-offending, or
(c) limit the impact of crime.
(11) In making payments under subsection (10), the Secretary of State must have regard to the sums that have been made available to, or received by, the Secretary of State by virtue of rules under section 47A of the Prison Act 1952 (reductions, deductions and levies in respect of payments to prisoners etc.).
Comment:
Prisoners are already paying for the crime by being deprived of their liberty with the pain of confinement. Moreover, the Howard League states: "Prisoners must pay tax which is the best way to support victims".
Prisoners are already paying once, if taxed they would pay twice, if a Victim Tax is also imposed it would create victims out of prisoners by making them pay three times for one crime!
The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. "The Bill’s provisions cover a diverse range of issues".
Could it be that the purpose behind a Bill covering a diverse range of issues is to hide something in the middle of it all, like something the Coalition does not wish to be the subject of too close scrutiny?
For example...
"Prisoners’ pay and employment: The Bill gives the Secretary of State new powers to make prison rules about prisoners’ employment, pay and deductions from their pay. The intention is that prisoners should make payments which would support victims of crime".
The relevant section of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill is below.
CHAPTER 5
PRISONERS ETC
103 Employment in prisons: deductions etc from payments to prisoners
(1) In section 47 of the Prison Act 1952 (power of Secretary of State to make rules for the regulation and management of prisons etc), in subsection (1) omit “employment,”.
(2) After that subsection insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may make rules about—
(a) the employment of persons who are required to be detained in
secure training centres or young offender institutions;
(b) the making of payments to such persons in respect of work or other activities undertaken by them, or in respect of their unemployment.”
(3) In that section, after subsection (5) insert—
“(6) Rules made under this section may—
(a) make different provision for different cases;
(b) contain supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or
saving provision.”
(4) After that section insert—
“47A Rules about employment in prisons etc
(1) The Secretary of State may make rules about—
(a) the employment of prisoners;
(b) the making of payments to prisoners in respect of work or other activities undertaken by them, or in respect of their unemployment.
(2) The Secretary of State may make rules about the making, by the governor of the prison in which a prisoner is detained or the Secretary of State, of reductions in payments to the prisoner in respect of—
(a) work undertaken by the prisoner,
(b) other activities undertaken by the prisoner, or
(c) the prisoner’s unemployment,
where those payments are made by or on behalf of the Secretary of State.
(3) Rules under subsection (2) may make provision, in a case where reductions are made by the governor, for amounts generated by the reductions to be used by the governor—
(a) for making payments for the benefit of victims or communities;
(b) for making payments for the purposes of the rehabilitation of offenders;
(c) for other prescribed purposes.
(4) Rules under subsection (2) may make provision, in a case where reductions are made by the governor—
(a) for amounts generated by the reductions to be used by the governor for making payments into an account of a prescribed kind;
(b) for the administration of the account;
(c) for the making of payments out of the account to a prisoner before or after the prisoner’s release on fulfilment by the prisoner of prescribed conditions.
(5) Rules under subsection (2) that make provision for amounts generated by reductions to be used to make payments may provide for such payments to be made after the deduction of amounts of a prescribed description.
(6) The Secretary of State may make rules about the making of deductions from, or
the imposition of levies on, payments to a prisoner in respect of—
(a) work undertaken by the prisoner,
(b) other activities undertaken by the prisoner, or
(c) the prisoner’s unemployment, where those payments are made otherwise than by or on behalf of the Secretary of State.
(7) Rules under subsection (6)—
(a) may provide for deductions to be made, or levies to be imposed, by the governor of the prison or by the Secretary of State;
(b) must provide that, if the governor makes the deductions or imposes the levies, the governor must pay amounts generated to the Secretary of State.
(8) The Secretary of State may make rules providing—
(a) for the making of payments by the Secretary of State into an account of a prescribed kind;
(b) for the administration of the account;
(c) for the making of payments out of the account to a prisoner before or after the prisoner’s release on fulfilment by the prisoner of prescribed conditions.
(9) Rules under this section may—
(a) make different provision for different cases;
(b) contain supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or saving provision.
(10) In this section references to the governor of a prison include—
(a) the director of a contracted out prison within the meaning of Part 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and
(b) an officer of a prison who may exercise the functions of a governor in accordance with rules under section 47 or this section.
(11) In this section—
“prescribed” means prescribed by rules under this section;
“prisoner” includes a prisoner on temporary release.”
(5) In section 66(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (procedure applying to rules under section 47 of the Prison Act 1952) for “of the said Act of 1952” substitute “or section 47A of the Prison Act 1952”.
(6) In section 4 of the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996 (interpretation)—
(a) omit subsection (2) (application of the Act to England and Wales), and
(b) in subsection (3) (application of the Act to Scotland), for “In the
application of this Act to Scotland” substitute “In this Act”.
(7) In section 5 of that Act (short title, commencement and extent), for subsection
(3) substitute—
“(3) This Act extends to Scotland only.”
(8) Before the coming into force of section 59 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (abolition of power to provide remand centres), section 47(1A) of the Prison Act 1952 has effect as if it referred also to persons required to be detained in remand centres.
(9) Before the coming into force of section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (abolition of sentences of detention in a young offender institution, custody for life etc)—
(a) section 47(1A) of the Prison Act 1952 has effect as if the references to persons required to be detained in young offender institutions were to persons aged under 18 required to be so detained, and
(b) section 47A of that Act has effect as if—
(i) “prison” included a young offender institution, and
(ii) “prisoner” included a person aged 18 or over who is required to be detained in a young offender institution.
(10) The Secretary of State may make such payments to such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with measures that appear to the Secretary of State to be intended to—
(a) rehabilitate offenders,
(b) prevent re-offending, or
(c) limit the impact of crime.
(11) In making payments under subsection (10), the Secretary of State must have regard to the sums that have been made available to, or received by, the Secretary of State by virtue of rules under section 47A of the Prison Act 1952 (reductions, deductions and levies in respect of payments to prisoners etc.).
Comment:
Prisoners are already paying for the crime by being deprived of their liberty with the pain of confinement. Moreover, the Howard League states: "Prisoners must pay tax which is the best way to support victims".
Prisoners are already paying once, if taxed they would pay twice, if a Victim Tax is also imposed it would create victims out of prisoners by making them pay three times for one crime!
Rio Ferdinand launches privacy action
Rio Ferdinand launches privacy action
England and Manchester United footballer Rio Ferdinand is launching a privacy action over a Sunday Mirror kiss-and-tell story.
The article was published on the paper's website for five days in April last year before being taken down.
Ferdinand, who has two sons and a daughter with wife Rebecca, claims the publication was a misuse of private information.
The paper counters that it was in the public interest to run the story about his alleged 13-year relationship with another woman.
Both Ferdinand and the woman are expected to give evidence in the high court in a case expected to last for three days.
The judge, Mr Justice Nicol, must decide whether the newspaper was justified in publishing under article 10 of the human rights act, which protects freedom of expression, or whether Ferdinand's privacy rights, under article 8, were unfairly compromised.
Ferdinand is represented by Hugh Tomlinson QC and Gavin Millar QC is acting for the newspaper.
Source: PA
England and Manchester United footballer Rio Ferdinand is launching a privacy action over a Sunday Mirror kiss-and-tell story.
The article was published on the paper's website for five days in April last year before being taken down.
Ferdinand, who has two sons and a daughter with wife Rebecca, claims the publication was a misuse of private information.
The paper counters that it was in the public interest to run the story about his alleged 13-year relationship with another woman.
Both Ferdinand and the woman are expected to give evidence in the high court in a case expected to last for three days.
The judge, Mr Justice Nicol, must decide whether the newspaper was justified in publishing under article 10 of the human rights act, which protects freedom of expression, or whether Ferdinand's privacy rights, under article 8, were unfairly compromised.
Ferdinand is represented by Hugh Tomlinson QC and Gavin Millar QC is acting for the newspaper.
Source: PA
US jail inmate sues over pornography ban
US jail inmate sues over pornography ban
AP
Monday, 4 July 2011
A US jail inmate said he is being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because he can not have pornography.
In a hand-written lawsuit, 21-year-old Kyle Richards claims his civil rights are being violated at the Macomb County Jail.
Richards said denying his request for erotic material subjects him to a "poor standard of living" and "sexual and sensory deprivation".
The Michigan Department of Corrections told The Detroit News that prisons allow some pornographic material, though it is banned at the jail. The American Civil Liberties Union said prisons have a lot of leeway.
Richards was charged with bank robbery after police followed a trail of snowy footprints and dropped money to his apartment from a bank robbery scene in January in Fraser, north of Detroit.
Richards pleaded guilty. Sentencing is on August 2.
AP
Monday, 4 July 2011
A US jail inmate said he is being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because he can not have pornography.
In a hand-written lawsuit, 21-year-old Kyle Richards claims his civil rights are being violated at the Macomb County Jail.
Richards said denying his request for erotic material subjects him to a "poor standard of living" and "sexual and sensory deprivation".
The Michigan Department of Corrections told The Detroit News that prisons allow some pornographic material, though it is banned at the jail. The American Civil Liberties Union said prisons have a lot of leeway.
Richards was charged with bank robbery after police followed a trail of snowy footprints and dropped money to his apartment from a bank robbery scene in January in Fraser, north of Detroit.
Richards pleaded guilty. Sentencing is on August 2.
Prisoners plan EU legal fight against 'victim tax' on their wages
Prisoners plan EU legal fight against 'victim tax' on their wages
By Jack Doyle
Last updated at 11:45 PM on 3rd July 2011
Prisoners are set to launch a legal challenge over the Government's plan to put two-fifths of their wages towards a fund for victims.
The case is being led by killer John Hirst, who took the fight for prisoners' votes to the European Court of Human Rights.
Hirst, who was jailed for hacking his landlady to death with an axe, says the Justice Secretary's proposals amount to the 'exploitation' of inmates, who would also be made to work a 40-hour week.
The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill is expected to pass by the end of the year. It includes plans to allow deductions from prisoners' earnings both while they are in jail and working in the community prior to release.
Offenders in prison workshops earn an average of £9.60 a week. Under the Government's proposals they would receive more, but pay tax and National Insurance.
In addition, around 40 per cent of their wages would go to a victims' fund. It is estimated the move would raise around £1million a year, which ministers say will help repair the harm criminals have done.
However, Hirst insists prisoners will be 'ripped off' by having cash deducted from their earnings, and should be paid the full minimum wage – currently £5.93 per hour for those over 21, rising to £6.08 in October.
'The whole idea is to exploit and that's a big no-no. Prisoners should be allowed to keep the money for themselves,' he said.
'I'm against money being deducted for victims. It's a victims' tax. It's wrong, we are going to end up with nothing. By the time they've finished it's 70p per hour, which isn't anything like the minimum wage.'
Hirst has taken his fight to the European Court of Human Rights
Hirst confirmed he is prepared to take his latest case to the European courts as well. Ken Clarke is keen to make prisoners work to help them reform their lives after they leave jail, as part of a 'rehabilitation revolution'.
Launching his Bill last month, Mr Clarke said: 'Prisons must become places of hard work and training, where prisoners are expected to work a 40-hour week, with money from their earnings deducted to support victims' groups.'
A report from the Policy Exchange think-tank this year revealed that fewer than one in ten inmates is employed in a prison workshop. They work for an average of less than 12 hours a week.
A Ministry of Justice source insisted it was right for offenders to work, and for money to be taken from their wages to help victims.
'We are absolutely determined to press ahead with the plans to make prisoners work hard in order to contribute to funding services for victims,' he said.
'It's absolutely right that prisoners should be doing something productive, which helps the people that they have harmed, instead of lying idle in their cells all day.'
Hirst was jailed for a minimum of 15 years for the attack on his landlady, Bronia Burton, near Burghfield Common, Berkshire, in 1979. He denied murder, but admitted manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
He was not released until 2004, after his sentence was extended by more than a decade for a string of violent crimes committed in prison.
Last year, a video on YouTube showed him smoking a joint and drinking champagne following a ruling by the ECHR on handing prisoners the vote.
The court's Grand Chamber rejected a last-ditch appeal by ministers, and in April gave them a six-month deadline for enfranchising inmates.
By Jack Doyle
Last updated at 11:45 PM on 3rd July 2011
Prisoners are set to launch a legal challenge over the Government's plan to put two-fifths of their wages towards a fund for victims.
The case is being led by killer John Hirst, who took the fight for prisoners' votes to the European Court of Human Rights.
Hirst, who was jailed for hacking his landlady to death with an axe, says the Justice Secretary's proposals amount to the 'exploitation' of inmates, who would also be made to work a 40-hour week.
The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill is expected to pass by the end of the year. It includes plans to allow deductions from prisoners' earnings both while they are in jail and working in the community prior to release.
Offenders in prison workshops earn an average of £9.60 a week. Under the Government's proposals they would receive more, but pay tax and National Insurance.
In addition, around 40 per cent of their wages would go to a victims' fund. It is estimated the move would raise around £1million a year, which ministers say will help repair the harm criminals have done.
However, Hirst insists prisoners will be 'ripped off' by having cash deducted from their earnings, and should be paid the full minimum wage – currently £5.93 per hour for those over 21, rising to £6.08 in October.
'The whole idea is to exploit and that's a big no-no. Prisoners should be allowed to keep the money for themselves,' he said.
'I'm against money being deducted for victims. It's a victims' tax. It's wrong, we are going to end up with nothing. By the time they've finished it's 70p per hour, which isn't anything like the minimum wage.'
Hirst has taken his fight to the European Court of Human RightsHirst confirmed he is prepared to take his latest case to the European courts as well. Ken Clarke is keen to make prisoners work to help them reform their lives after they leave jail, as part of a 'rehabilitation revolution'.
Launching his Bill last month, Mr Clarke said: 'Prisons must become places of hard work and training, where prisoners are expected to work a 40-hour week, with money from their earnings deducted to support victims' groups.'
A report from the Policy Exchange think-tank this year revealed that fewer than one in ten inmates is employed in a prison workshop. They work for an average of less than 12 hours a week.
A Ministry of Justice source insisted it was right for offenders to work, and for money to be taken from their wages to help victims.
'We are absolutely determined to press ahead with the plans to make prisoners work hard in order to contribute to funding services for victims,' he said.
'It's absolutely right that prisoners should be doing something productive, which helps the people that they have harmed, instead of lying idle in their cells all day.'
Hirst was jailed for a minimum of 15 years for the attack on his landlady, Bronia Burton, near Burghfield Common, Berkshire, in 1979. He denied murder, but admitted manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
He was not released until 2004, after his sentence was extended by more than a decade for a string of violent crimes committed in prison.
Last year, a video on YouTube showed him smoking a joint and drinking champagne following a ruling by the ECHR on handing prisoners the vote.
The court's Grand Chamber rejected a last-ditch appeal by ministers, and in April gave them a six-month deadline for enfranchising inmates.
Sunday, July 03, 2011
Convicted killer sues jail in $50 million suit...for calling him an inmate
Convicted killer sues jail in $50 million suit...for calling him an inmate
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 2:45 PM on 3rd July 2011
The family of a convicted killer is suing New York state for $50 million, saying he is being 'stigmatised' by being called an 'inmate'.
Gerard Domond, 49, says the term implies he was 'mating with other men' in his lawsuit against the state.
Comment: The mind boggles!
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 2:45 PM on 3rd July 2011
The family of a convicted killer is suing New York state for $50 million, saying he is being 'stigmatised' by being called an 'inmate'.
Gerard Domond, 49, says the term implies he was 'mating with other men' in his lawsuit against the state.
Comment: The mind boggles!
Voting Rights: Prisoners
Voting Rights: Prisoners
Priti Patel: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the implications for the UK of the decisions reached at the 1115th meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in respect of the voting rights of prisoners; and what position the UK representative at the meeting took on the resolution and decision made in respect of the execution of the Hirst (No.2) v. United Kingdom judgement. [62543]
Mr Harper: The decision in respect of Hirst (No. 2) v. the United Kingdom was adopted by the Committee of Ministers at their 1115th meeting without discussion. It reflects the Court's judgments in that case and the case of Greens and MT v. the United Kingdom. As there ¦847was no discussion or resolution adopted there was no opportunity for the UK delegate to state a position.
Priti Patel: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) with reference to the decision reached at the 1115th meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in respect of the voting rights of prisoners and the execution of the Hirst (No.2) v United Kingdom judgement, whether he has begun preparation of the action plan to submit to the Committee of Ministers; and when he expects the action plan to be submitted to the Committee of Ministers; [62544]
(2) what his policy is on proposing amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill to make provision to extend the franchise to prisoners; what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Justice on this issue; and if he will make a statement. [62648]
Mr Harper: The Government are considering the next steps and I will inform the House when decisions on the way forward have been reached.
Priti Patel: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of each item of correspondence between the Government and each institution of the Council of Europe in respect of the voting rights of prisoners. [62545]
Mr Harper: Information submitted to the Committee of Ministers by the UK Government on prisoner voting rights is published on its website
Priti Patel: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the implications for the UK of the decisions reached at the 1115th meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in respect of the voting rights of prisoners; and what position the UK representative at the meeting took on the resolution and decision made in respect of the execution of the Hirst (No.2) v. United Kingdom judgement. [62543]
Mr Harper: The decision in respect of Hirst (No. 2) v. the United Kingdom was adopted by the Committee of Ministers at their 1115th meeting without discussion. It reflects the Court's judgments in that case and the case of Greens and MT v. the United Kingdom. As there ¦847was no discussion or resolution adopted there was no opportunity for the UK delegate to state a position.
Priti Patel: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) with reference to the decision reached at the 1115th meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in respect of the voting rights of prisoners and the execution of the Hirst (No.2) v United Kingdom judgement, whether he has begun preparation of the action plan to submit to the Committee of Ministers; and when he expects the action plan to be submitted to the Committee of Ministers; [62544]
(2) what his policy is on proposing amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill to make provision to extend the franchise to prisoners; what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Justice on this issue; and if he will make a statement. [62648]
Mr Harper: The Government are considering the next steps and I will inform the House when decisions on the way forward have been reached.
Priti Patel: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of each item of correspondence between the Government and each institution of the Council of Europe in respect of the voting rights of prisoners. [62545]
Mr Harper: Information submitted to the Committee of Ministers by the UK Government on prisoner voting rights is published on its website
Prison Labour: Salvation or Slavery?
Prison Labour: Salvation or Slavery?
"In 1919, the Labour Party established a Prison System Enquiry Committee...It's report (Hobhouse and Fenner Brockway, 1922) painted a less rosy picture of prison labour than the Commissioners might have liked.
Hobhouse and Fenner Brockway concluded that prison labour had a low priority within prisons...
Finally, it is worth noting that Hobhouse and Fenner Brockway argued strongly for a system of payment for prison work, a view that led them to consider whether prison labour did or should compete with free labour. On this point they concluded that: 'all useful work done in prison is necessarily competitive with free labour. The right course is to demand that it should be done under Trade Union conditions'" (Source Prison Labour: Salvation or Slavery, Edited by Dirk van Zyl Smit and Frieder Dunkel, Ashgate, 1999, pp 45-46).
In Germany, on 1 July 1998, the Federal Constitutional Court decided that under the Prison Act 1976 prison labour must be paid at least the NMW.
Any plan by the Coalition to exploit UK prison labour will run into difficulites under European law.
"In 1919, the Labour Party established a Prison System Enquiry Committee...It's report (Hobhouse and Fenner Brockway, 1922) painted a less rosy picture of prison labour than the Commissioners might have liked.
Hobhouse and Fenner Brockway concluded that prison labour had a low priority within prisons...
Finally, it is worth noting that Hobhouse and Fenner Brockway argued strongly for a system of payment for prison work, a view that led them to consider whether prison labour did or should compete with free labour. On this point they concluded that: 'all useful work done in prison is necessarily competitive with free labour. The right course is to demand that it should be done under Trade Union conditions'" (Source Prison Labour: Salvation or Slavery, Edited by Dirk van Zyl Smit and Frieder Dunkel, Ashgate, 1999, pp 45-46).
In Germany, on 1 July 1998, the Federal Constitutional Court decided that under the Prison Act 1976 prison labour must be paid at least the NMW.
Any plan by the Coalition to exploit UK prison labour will run into difficulites under European law.
Saturday, July 02, 2011
Guido Fawkes/Paul Staines caught out in plagiarism row!
Guido Fawkes/Paul Staines caught out in plagiarism row!
My Tweet on 28 June 2011
Jailhouselawyer John Hirst
Dirty Hari blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung…
28 Jun Favorite Reply Delete
Guido Fawkes' theft of my idea on 29 June 2011
June 29th, 2011
Dirty Hari: Johann Story Rapidly Unravelling
Damian Thompson is Editor of Telegraph Blogs and a leader writer for the Daily Telegraph.
On 30 June 2011 he writes...
Johann Hari: the back story
The “Dirty Hari” scandal, as Guido calls it, may have caught Johann Hari’s readers by surprise; it shouldn’t have come as such a shock to media commentators.
And yesterday he writes...
This isn’t just a media squabble. The “Dirty Hari” scandal, as it’s being called, tells us two things.
My Tweet on 28 June 2011
Jailhouselawyer John Hirst
Dirty Hari blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung…
28 Jun Favorite Reply Delete
Guido Fawkes' theft of my idea on 29 June 2011
June 29th, 2011
Dirty Hari: Johann Story Rapidly Unravelling
Damian Thompson is Editor of Telegraph Blogs and a leader writer for the Daily Telegraph.
On 30 June 2011 he writes...
Johann Hari: the back story
The “Dirty Hari” scandal, as Guido calls it, may have caught Johann Hari’s readers by surprise; it shouldn’t have come as such a shock to media commentators.
And yesterday he writes...
This isn’t just a media squabble. The “Dirty Hari” scandal, as it’s being called, tells us two things.
News round up
News round up
Independent
Illinois' death row officially shuts down
By Don Babwin, Associated Press
Saturday, 2 July 2011
"One man who came within 48 hours of being executed was among those later declared innocent".
Guardian
China: who will defend the law's defenders?
Human rights lawyers in China are increasingly being subjected to arbitrary detention and torture. They need protecting
"Among the 204,000 lawyers in China, only a brave few hundred risk taking on cases that deal with human rights. The pressure, intimidation and persecution faced by human rights lawyers have ensured that few dare to represent clients persecuted by the state".
Independent
Illinois' death row officially shuts down
By Don Babwin, Associated Press
Saturday, 2 July 2011
"One man who came within 48 hours of being executed was among those later declared innocent".
Guardian
China: who will defend the law's defenders?
Human rights lawyers in China are increasingly being subjected to arbitrary detention and torture. They need protecting
"Among the 204,000 lawyers in China, only a brave few hundred risk taking on cases that deal with human rights. The pressure, intimidation and persecution faced by human rights lawyers have ensured that few dare to represent clients persecuted by the state".
Wikio Top 20 UK in the Law blogs
Wikio Top 20 UK in the Law blogs
1 UK Human Rights Blog
2 Jack of Kent
3 The Open Rights Group Blog
4 POLICE INSPECTOR BLOG
5 XpertHR - Employment Intelligence
6 TechnoLlama
7 Lords of the Blog
8 Head of Legal
9 Inforrm's Blog
10 Employment law from People Management
11 Lawyer Watch
12 The Landlord Law Blog
13 Jailhouselawyer's Blog
14 Free Movement
15 The 1709 Blog
16 Heather Brooke
17 nearlylegal
18 Family Lore
19 Law and Lawyers
20 Pink Tape
Ranking made by Wikio
1 UK Human Rights Blog
2 Jack of Kent
3 The Open Rights Group Blog
4 POLICE INSPECTOR BLOG
5 XpertHR - Employment Intelligence
6 TechnoLlama
7 Lords of the Blog
8 Head of Legal
9 Inforrm's Blog
10 Employment law from People Management
11 Lawyer Watch
12 The Landlord Law Blog
13 Jailhouselawyer's Blog
14 Free Movement
15 The 1709 Blog
16 Heather Brooke
17 nearlylegal
18 Family Lore
19 Law and Lawyers
20 Pink Tape
Ranking made by Wikio
Friday, July 01, 2011
Good Lord! Hardly...
Good Lord! Hardly...
Essex lad gone bad
Passing sentence, Mr Justice Saunders said he would now be partly remembered as a "benefits cheat".
Essex lad gone badPassing sentence, Mr Justice Saunders said he would now be partly remembered as a "benefits cheat".
Strike action and and the House of Lords
Strike action and and the House of Lords
As I walked down to the station yesterday morning to catch a train to London to attend a meeting in the House of Lords, there was a large group holding placards with CSU on them, and only one copper in sight, and I saw a friend in the group and asked him “Why aren’t you at work?”. We shook hands and someone gave me a leaflet, I looked at it and told the leafleteer “I don’t believe in unions”. My friend told him, “Don’t believe him! He set up a union for prisoners!”.
As I came out of Westminster tube station, the road in front of the Houses of Parliament was blocked by parked police vans 3 deep, going in both directions as far as the eye can see, and policemen lined both sides of the street. I assumed that they were there to protect the rogues inside Parliament. I noticed a pile of placards with CSU on them lying on the ground, I assume that they had been taken from strikers.
When I arrived in Committee Room 4, there was only one other person in the room. I set up the leaflet in front of the Chairman’s red chair with the gold portcullis on it, and the other person obligingly took a photo of it for me. It was only a small protest or act of defiance, but to do it inside Parliament given the effort the police had gone to to prevent such from happening I think is a small victory.
We talked for a few minutes and decided to go for a smoke. However, upon discovering that we would have to go off the estate and come back through security again we chose not to go out. I pointed out that there are smoke detectors in the corridors, but none in Committee Room 4. He said there are no No Smoking notices. Even if we, a pair of ex-cons, had been caught it hardly constitutes treason!
When the organisers came in they told us about how they had prevented the police from arresting a group of students who were carrying placards outside…
n.b. This post first appeared as a comment on Bob Piper's blog.
As I walked down to the station yesterday morning to catch a train to London to attend a meeting in the House of Lords, there was a large group holding placards with CSU on them, and only one copper in sight, and I saw a friend in the group and asked him “Why aren’t you at work?”. We shook hands and someone gave me a leaflet, I looked at it and told the leafleteer “I don’t believe in unions”. My friend told him, “Don’t believe him! He set up a union for prisoners!”.
As I came out of Westminster tube station, the road in front of the Houses of Parliament was blocked by parked police vans 3 deep, going in both directions as far as the eye can see, and policemen lined both sides of the street. I assumed that they were there to protect the rogues inside Parliament. I noticed a pile of placards with CSU on them lying on the ground, I assume that they had been taken from strikers.
When I arrived in Committee Room 4, there was only one other person in the room. I set up the leaflet in front of the Chairman’s red chair with the gold portcullis on it, and the other person obligingly took a photo of it for me. It was only a small protest or act of defiance, but to do it inside Parliament given the effort the police had gone to to prevent such from happening I think is a small victory.
We talked for a few minutes and decided to go for a smoke. However, upon discovering that we would have to go off the estate and come back through security again we chose not to go out. I pointed out that there are smoke detectors in the corridors, but none in Committee Room 4. He said there are no No Smoking notices. Even if we, a pair of ex-cons, had been caught it hardly constitutes treason!
When the organisers came in they told us about how they had prevented the police from arresting a group of students who were carrying placards outside…
n.b. This post first appeared as a comment on Bob Piper's blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)