A Meeting with Ming from Nick Robinson's blog
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
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
The future is Nick Clegg
The future is Nick Clegg
Christmas comes early for Nick Clegg as he is announced as the LibDem leader on 17th of December 2007.
Thai police name suspected web paedophile
Thai police name suspected web paedophile
Interpol are searching for a 32 year old Canadian named as English language teacher Christopher Paul Neil.
Planes collide at Heathrow airport
Planes collide at Heathrow airport
By Sophie Borland
Last Updated: 12:12am BST 16/10/2007
Two planes collided on the runway at Heathrow airport last night whilst preparing to take-off.
Witnesses reported seeing part of the engine of a British Airways jumbo jet aircraft, Flight BA011, falling onto the runway whist the tip of the wing of an Air Lanka flight had come away. Nobody was thought to be injured in the crash but about 20 fire engines were called to scene.
The BA jet was bound for Singapore when it crashed into the Air Lanka plane which was heading for the Maldives at about 10pm.
The cause of the incident was not known but engineers were called to the scene and were investigating both aircraft.
Passengers were reported to be very shaken and distressed but were being told by their pilots over the intercom that there was no need to panic.
Patrick Spink, spokesman for British Airways said: "The crash happened when the BA011 flight bound for Singapore hit the Air Lanka flight shortly after 10pm.
"We are not yet sure what caused the crash but it is thought that the British Airways jet collided with the wing of the other aircraft causing the tip of it to break away.
"Obviously under the circumstances the safety of passengers is paramount and all those on board both aircraft are being moved to the terminal buildings.
"Engineers have also been called to investigate the scene and a full inquiry will be launched to determine the exact cause of this incident.
"Nobody is thought to have been injured in the crash."
A spokesman for London Fire Brigade said that there was no serious damage to the aircraft and no reports of injuries.
Each year more than 64 million passengers pass through Heathrow airport and there are about 450,000 landings and take-offs.
The incident comes as Heathrow airport faces growing criticism for long delays and chaos caused to passengers.
Last month the airport was found to have the worst delays in Europe with some passangers being forced to wait on the tarmac for up to half an hour.
During one incident the airport's northern runway was blocked for more than 90 minutes after an Royal Brunei flight made an emergency landing
Statistics from the Association of European Airlines showed that more than one flight in three left Heathrow more than 15 minutes late.
The figures showed that Heathrow's performance from April to June was about three per cent worse than the previous quarter, with delays faced by passengers at check-in and security often continuing once they are on board.
The Daily Telegraph have also revealed how the Spanish operators of the airport, BAA, had to pay passengers more than £144,000 to airlines for poor performance.
By Sophie Borland
Last Updated: 12:12am BST 16/10/2007
Two planes collided on the runway at Heathrow airport last night whilst preparing to take-off.
Witnesses reported seeing part of the engine of a British Airways jumbo jet aircraft, Flight BA011, falling onto the runway whist the tip of the wing of an Air Lanka flight had come away. Nobody was thought to be injured in the crash but about 20 fire engines were called to scene.
The BA jet was bound for Singapore when it crashed into the Air Lanka plane which was heading for the Maldives at about 10pm.
The cause of the incident was not known but engineers were called to the scene and were investigating both aircraft.
Passengers were reported to be very shaken and distressed but were being told by their pilots over the intercom that there was no need to panic.
Patrick Spink, spokesman for British Airways said: "The crash happened when the BA011 flight bound for Singapore hit the Air Lanka flight shortly after 10pm.
"We are not yet sure what caused the crash but it is thought that the British Airways jet collided with the wing of the other aircraft causing the tip of it to break away.
"Obviously under the circumstances the safety of passengers is paramount and all those on board both aircraft are being moved to the terminal buildings.
"Engineers have also been called to investigate the scene and a full inquiry will be launched to determine the exact cause of this incident.
"Nobody is thought to have been injured in the crash."
A spokesman for London Fire Brigade said that there was no serious damage to the aircraft and no reports of injuries.
Each year more than 64 million passengers pass through Heathrow airport and there are about 450,000 landings and take-offs.
The incident comes as Heathrow airport faces growing criticism for long delays and chaos caused to passengers.
Last month the airport was found to have the worst delays in Europe with some passangers being forced to wait on the tarmac for up to half an hour.
During one incident the airport's northern runway was blocked for more than 90 minutes after an Royal Brunei flight made an emergency landing
Statistics from the Association of European Airlines showed that more than one flight in three left Heathrow more than 15 minutes late.
The figures showed that Heathrow's performance from April to June was about three per cent worse than the previous quarter, with delays faced by passengers at check-in and security often continuing once they are on board.
The Daily Telegraph have also revealed how the Spanish operators of the airport, BAA, had to pay passengers more than £144,000 to airlines for poor performance.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Madeleine: Branson should shut his mouth
Madeleine: Branson should shut his mouth
Virgin entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson has criticised Portuguese police for "overstepping the mark" by accusing Madeleine McCann's parents of involvement in her disappearance.
Richard Branson shut the fuck up you stupid bastard! It's the job of the police to investigate crime, and part of that process is to treat everybody involved as suspects until they eliminate them from their inquiries. In the case of the McCanns, the police have every right to accuse them in the disappearance of Madeleine. They were the last people to see Madeleine alive. They are also the people who should have been responsible for her safety. If you are stupid enough to fall for the McCanns lies, I would keep it to yourself. Had Clarence Mitchell not tipped off the McCanns to the police monitoring them, there is every likelihood they would already have been charged and awaiting trial for Madeleine's death and disposing of her body. You are in no position to judge that the McCanns are innocent. All you are doing with your money is trying to buy the McCanns a get out of jail free card. Stop interfering with the course of justice.
Virgin entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson has criticised Portuguese police for "overstepping the mark" by accusing Madeleine McCann's parents of involvement in her disappearance.
Richard Branson shut the fuck up you stupid bastard! It's the job of the police to investigate crime, and part of that process is to treat everybody involved as suspects until they eliminate them from their inquiries. In the case of the McCanns, the police have every right to accuse them in the disappearance of Madeleine. They were the last people to see Madeleine alive. They are also the people who should have been responsible for her safety. If you are stupid enough to fall for the McCanns lies, I would keep it to yourself. Had Clarence Mitchell not tipped off the McCanns to the police monitoring them, there is every likelihood they would already have been charged and awaiting trial for Madeleine's death and disposing of her body. You are in no position to judge that the McCanns are innocent. All you are doing with your money is trying to buy the McCanns a get out of jail free card. Stop interfering with the course of justice.
LibDems: Heads you don't win...tails you lose
LibDems: Heads you don't win...tails you lose
Did Menzies Campbell commit political suicide or was he murdered? The manager of Lincoln City football club has just been sacked because the team was playing badly and losing too many games. So, with the LibDems they too have been doing badly in the opinion polls. It was just a matter of time, Ming's position had become untenable. Political gossip Iain Dale has misread the situation by advocating the second coming of Charles Kennedy. This reminds me of the advice I once received not to open the drinks cabinet in my hotel room because it would have to be paid for when booking out. I liked Charles Kennedy because he supported convicted prisoners getting the vote. And so did Mark Oaten. Both having to resign because of a fondness for the bottle. Then along came the aged Ming and the youthful Nick Clegg. They decided to sacrifice their principles along with sacrificing prisoners human rights to the vote. That was a big mistake. I don't think it really matters who actually wins the LibDem leadership contest, because the LibDems are destined to always come a poor third behind Labour and the Conservative Parties, and in that sense the winner is a loser.
Update: Having just watched Vince Cable on BBC News at Ten, I am convinced that he lied when he stated that Ming jumped and was not pushed. Had this been a criminal investigation, I suspect that the psychological profilers would have also picked up the tell tale signs of the untruthful statement.
It wasn't suicide. Menzies Campbell was murdered.
UPDATED UPDATE: Sir Menzies Campbell has been forced to resign as leader of the Liberal Democrats after a brutal coup by his own MPs.
Sketch: The assassination of emperor Ming The assassination of the Ming Emperor stank of skulduggery and intrigue.
Did Menzies Campbell commit political suicide or was he murdered? The manager of Lincoln City football club has just been sacked because the team was playing badly and losing too many games. So, with the LibDems they too have been doing badly in the opinion polls. It was just a matter of time, Ming's position had become untenable. Political gossip Iain Dale has misread the situation by advocating the second coming of Charles Kennedy. This reminds me of the advice I once received not to open the drinks cabinet in my hotel room because it would have to be paid for when booking out. I liked Charles Kennedy because he supported convicted prisoners getting the vote. And so did Mark Oaten. Both having to resign because of a fondness for the bottle. Then along came the aged Ming and the youthful Nick Clegg. They decided to sacrifice their principles along with sacrificing prisoners human rights to the vote. That was a big mistake. I don't think it really matters who actually wins the LibDem leadership contest, because the LibDems are destined to always come a poor third behind Labour and the Conservative Parties, and in that sense the winner is a loser.
Update: Having just watched Vince Cable on BBC News at Ten, I am convinced that he lied when he stated that Ming jumped and was not pushed. Had this been a criminal investigation, I suspect that the psychological profilers would have also picked up the tell tale signs of the untruthful statement.
It wasn't suicide. Menzies Campbell was murdered.
UPDATED UPDATE: Sir Menzies Campbell has been forced to resign as leader of the Liberal Democrats after a brutal coup by his own MPs.
Sketch: The assassination of emperor Ming The assassination of the Ming Emperor stank of skulduggery and intrigue.
Prisoners could fix armed forces accomodation
Prisoners could fix armed forces accomodation
"Armed forces accommodation has been branded a "national scandal" after figures suggested it could take almost half a century to bring houses up to scratch".
It would seem to me that much of this problem could be reduced if the government used those prisoners with the necessary skills, and paying them the National Minimum Wage, to improve the state of these properties.
This would turn a lose/lose into a win/win situation.
"Armed forces accommodation has been branded a "national scandal" after figures suggested it could take almost half a century to bring houses up to scratch".
It would seem to me that much of this problem could be reduced if the government used those prisoners with the necessary skills, and paying them the National Minimum Wage, to improve the state of these properties.
This would turn a lose/lose into a win/win situation.
Tories lose £8m bequest fight
Tories lose £8m bequest fight
Hélène Mulholland
Monday October 15, 2007 10.30am
Guardian Unlimited
The Conservative party has been denied an £8.2m bequest after the high court today ruled that one of its staunchest supporters was suffering "insane delusions" when he made his will.
The family of Belgrade-born millionaire Branislav Kostic successfully argued that Bane, as he was known to his friends, was mentally ill when he changed his will.
The Conservatives insisted Mr Kostic gave the party the money because he was disappointed with his family and because "of his great and long-standing affection for the Conservative party and his admiration for Mrs Thatcher".
But his son, Zoran, argued that the change in the will - which would have deprived him of an inheritance - was made because "Bane was mentally ill".
The high court ruled the money, which is believed to have risen to nearly £10m after being invested in a trust, should remain with Mr Kostic's family.
A Conservative party spokesman said: "We have never had this money. It was money left to us in a will. There was a dispute over the will and the judgment has now ruled it should go to the family instead, but it is very important to state this money was never received by us."
The son of a delicatessen owner, Mr Kostic made his fortune in Britain and Switzerland. He was imprisoned by the Russians in 1944 but was released to fight the Nazis, suffering severe injuries.
Twenty years later he left for Britain and set up his company, Transtrade, which made millions of pounds by trading in pharmaceuticals and precious metals in the 1960s and 70s. He was a staunch supporter of Margaret Thatcher when she came to power in 1979.
And from the BBC: Tories lose £8.3m bequest battle
Hélène Mulholland
Monday October 15, 2007 10.30am
Guardian Unlimited
The Conservative party has been denied an £8.2m bequest after the high court today ruled that one of its staunchest supporters was suffering "insane delusions" when he made his will.
The family of Belgrade-born millionaire Branislav Kostic successfully argued that Bane, as he was known to his friends, was mentally ill when he changed his will.
The Conservatives insisted Mr Kostic gave the party the money because he was disappointed with his family and because "of his great and long-standing affection for the Conservative party and his admiration for Mrs Thatcher".
But his son, Zoran, argued that the change in the will - which would have deprived him of an inheritance - was made because "Bane was mentally ill".
The high court ruled the money, which is believed to have risen to nearly £10m after being invested in a trust, should remain with Mr Kostic's family.
A Conservative party spokesman said: "We have never had this money. It was money left to us in a will. There was a dispute over the will and the judgment has now ruled it should go to the family instead, but it is very important to state this money was never received by us."
The son of a delicatessen owner, Mr Kostic made his fortune in Britain and Switzerland. He was imprisoned by the Russians in 1944 but was released to fight the Nazis, suffering severe injuries.
Twenty years later he left for Britain and set up his company, Transtrade, which made millions of pounds by trading in pharmaceuticals and precious metals in the 1960s and 70s. He was a staunch supporter of Margaret Thatcher when she came to power in 1979.
And from the BBC: Tories lose £8.3m bequest battle
Legalise all drugs: chief constable demands end to 'immoral laws'
Legalise all drugs: chief constable demands end to 'immoral laws'
By Jonathan Brown and David Langton
Published: 15 October 2007
One of Britain's most senior police officers is to call for all drugs – including heroin and cocaine – to be legalised and urges the Government to declare an end to the "failed" war on illegal narcotics.
Richard Brunstrom, the Chief Constable of North Wales, advocates an end to UK drug policy based on "prohibition". His comments come as the Home Office this week ends the process of gathering expert advice looking at the next 10 years of strategy.
In his radical analysis, which he will present to the North Wales Police Authority today, Mr Brunstrom points out that illegal drugs are now cheaper and more plentiful than ever before.
The number of users has soared while drug-related crime is rising with narcotics now supporting a worldwide business empire second only in value to oil. "If policy on drugs is in future to be pragmatic not moralistic, driven by ethics not dogma, then the current prohibitionist stance will have to be swept away as both unworkable and immoral, to be replaced with an evidence-based unified system (specifically including tobacco and alcohol) aimed at minimisation of harms to society," he will say.
The demand will not find favour in Downing Street. In his conference speech this year, Gordon Brown signalled an intensification of the existing battle. "We will send out a clear message that drugs are never going to be decriminalised," the Prime Minister told the party.
The Tories also rejected the proposals. David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said a more effective move would be the creation of a UK border police force to stop drugs getting into the country as well as expanding rehabilitation centres. He added: "We would put police on the streets to catch and deter drug dealers and we would ensure sufficient prison capacity so they could actually be punished."
Mr Brunstrom, whose championing of speed cameras has made him a hate figure among some motoring groups, also found his suggestion that the war on drugs was unwinnable dismissed as a "counsel of despair" by the Association of Chief Police Officers. "Moving to total legalisation would, in our view, greatly exacerbate the harm to people in this country, not reduce it," an Acpo spokeswoman said.
But the 30-page report, entitled Drugs Policy – a radical look ahead, includes a number of persuasive voices. Today Mr Brunstrom will urge his colleagues to submit the paper to Westminster and the Welsh Assembly. In it, he quotes the findings in March this year of a Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts commission, which stated that "the law as it stands is not fit for purpose" and argues for the replacement of the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act with a new Misuse of Substances Act.
That would mean scrapping the ABC system introduced by the home secretary James Callaghan with a new scale that assesses substances, including alcohol and tobacco, in relation to the harm they cause – although he admits banning booze and cigarettes is not likely.
But he notes that figures from the Chief Medical Officer have found that, in Scotland, 13,000 people died from tobacco-related use in 2004 while 2,052 died as a result of alcohol. Illegal drugs, meanwhile, accounted for 356 deaths. The maximum penalty for possessing a class A drug is 14 years in prison while supplying it carries a life term.
Mr Brunstrom indicates that there is a growing mood for change. He cites the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, which criticised the Government for failing to switch to an evidence-based policy approach. The report also includes quotes from former home secretary John Reid, admitting "prohibition" doesn't work, and the Olympics minister, Tessa Jowell, conceding "it drives the activity underground" . There is also supportive evidence from former Chief Inspector of Prisons Lord Ramsbotham, a retired High Court judge, and Scotland's Drug Tsar, Tom Wood.
As well as hitting the country hard in economic terms – class A drug use in England and Wales costs the country up to £17bn a year, 90 per cent of which is due to crime – there are also a series of socially damaging knock-on effects, he says.
He argues that prohibition has created a crisis in the criminal justice system, destabilised producer countries and undermined human rights worldwide. By pursuing a policy of legalisation and regulation, he concludes, the Government will "dramatically reduce drug-related criminality and will enable significant funds to be transferred from law enforcement to harm reduction and treatment procedures that are known to work."
There was a mixed response from groups that work with users. Danny Kushlick, a director of the charity Transform Drug Policy Foundation, praised Mr Brunstrom for his "great leadership and imagination". But Clare McNeil, a policy officer for Addaction, said talk of legalisation distracted attention from the more important issue of rehabilitation. "We have some sympathy with his views and the reasons and why he believes this but we are not in favour of legalisation," she said.
Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said it was " significant" that a senior police officer had spoken out although he too thought the police chief's views went too far. "Where he is absolutely right is that the Government's drugs policy is failing and failing spectacularly. The refusal of the Government to think radically means we are letting thousands of young boys and girls down.
"I am not persuaded that full legalisation is the way forward but what is necessary is that a more logical and evidence-based approach is needed which is less susceptible to whims of individual home secretaries ... The system does not work as it is."
The Chief Constable's verdict
* British drugs policy has been based upon prohibition for the last several decades – but this system has not worked well. Illegal drugs are in plentiful supply and have become consistently cheaper in real terms over the years.
* The number of drug users has increased dramatically. Drug-related crime has soared equally sharply as a direct consequence of the illegality of some drugs. The vast profits from illegal trading have supported a massive rise in organised crime.
* The ABC classification of drugs is said by the RSA Commission to be indefensible and is described as "crude, ineffective, riddled with anomalies and open to political manipulation". Most importantly, the current ABC system illogically excludes both alcohol and tobacco.
* Mr Brunstrom says: "If policy on drugs is in the future to be pragmatic not moralistic, driven by ethics not dogma, then the current prohibitionist stance will have to be swept away as both unworkable and immoral. Such a strategy leads inevitably to the legalisation and regulation of all drugs."
* The chief constable asserts that current British drugs policy is based upon an unwinnable "war on drugs" enshrined in a flawed understanding of the underlying United Nations conventions, and arising from a wholly outdated and thoroughly repugnant moralistic stance.
* He concludes: "The law is the law. In the meantime, I will continue to enforce it to the best of my ability despite my misgivings about its moral and practical worth."
UPDATE: Arguments for and against drug prohibition.
By Jonathan Brown and David Langton
Published: 15 October 2007
One of Britain's most senior police officers is to call for all drugs – including heroin and cocaine – to be legalised and urges the Government to declare an end to the "failed" war on illegal narcotics.
Richard Brunstrom, the Chief Constable of North Wales, advocates an end to UK drug policy based on "prohibition". His comments come as the Home Office this week ends the process of gathering expert advice looking at the next 10 years of strategy.
In his radical analysis, which he will present to the North Wales Police Authority today, Mr Brunstrom points out that illegal drugs are now cheaper and more plentiful than ever before.
The number of users has soared while drug-related crime is rising with narcotics now supporting a worldwide business empire second only in value to oil. "If policy on drugs is in future to be pragmatic not moralistic, driven by ethics not dogma, then the current prohibitionist stance will have to be swept away as both unworkable and immoral, to be replaced with an evidence-based unified system (specifically including tobacco and alcohol) aimed at minimisation of harms to society," he will say.
The demand will not find favour in Downing Street. In his conference speech this year, Gordon Brown signalled an intensification of the existing battle. "We will send out a clear message that drugs are never going to be decriminalised," the Prime Minister told the party.
The Tories also rejected the proposals. David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said a more effective move would be the creation of a UK border police force to stop drugs getting into the country as well as expanding rehabilitation centres. He added: "We would put police on the streets to catch and deter drug dealers and we would ensure sufficient prison capacity so they could actually be punished."
Mr Brunstrom, whose championing of speed cameras has made him a hate figure among some motoring groups, also found his suggestion that the war on drugs was unwinnable dismissed as a "counsel of despair" by the Association of Chief Police Officers. "Moving to total legalisation would, in our view, greatly exacerbate the harm to people in this country, not reduce it," an Acpo spokeswoman said.
But the 30-page report, entitled Drugs Policy – a radical look ahead, includes a number of persuasive voices. Today Mr Brunstrom will urge his colleagues to submit the paper to Westminster and the Welsh Assembly. In it, he quotes the findings in March this year of a Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts commission, which stated that "the law as it stands is not fit for purpose" and argues for the replacement of the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act with a new Misuse of Substances Act.
That would mean scrapping the ABC system introduced by the home secretary James Callaghan with a new scale that assesses substances, including alcohol and tobacco, in relation to the harm they cause – although he admits banning booze and cigarettes is not likely.
But he notes that figures from the Chief Medical Officer have found that, in Scotland, 13,000 people died from tobacco-related use in 2004 while 2,052 died as a result of alcohol. Illegal drugs, meanwhile, accounted for 356 deaths. The maximum penalty for possessing a class A drug is 14 years in prison while supplying it carries a life term.
Mr Brunstrom indicates that there is a growing mood for change. He cites the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, which criticised the Government for failing to switch to an evidence-based policy approach. The report also includes quotes from former home secretary John Reid, admitting "prohibition" doesn't work, and the Olympics minister, Tessa Jowell, conceding "it drives the activity underground" . There is also supportive evidence from former Chief Inspector of Prisons Lord Ramsbotham, a retired High Court judge, and Scotland's Drug Tsar, Tom Wood.
As well as hitting the country hard in economic terms – class A drug use in England and Wales costs the country up to £17bn a year, 90 per cent of which is due to crime – there are also a series of socially damaging knock-on effects, he says.
He argues that prohibition has created a crisis in the criminal justice system, destabilised producer countries and undermined human rights worldwide. By pursuing a policy of legalisation and regulation, he concludes, the Government will "dramatically reduce drug-related criminality and will enable significant funds to be transferred from law enforcement to harm reduction and treatment procedures that are known to work."
There was a mixed response from groups that work with users. Danny Kushlick, a director of the charity Transform Drug Policy Foundation, praised Mr Brunstrom for his "great leadership and imagination". But Clare McNeil, a policy officer for Addaction, said talk of legalisation distracted attention from the more important issue of rehabilitation. "We have some sympathy with his views and the reasons and why he believes this but we are not in favour of legalisation," she said.
Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said it was " significant" that a senior police officer had spoken out although he too thought the police chief's views went too far. "Where he is absolutely right is that the Government's drugs policy is failing and failing spectacularly. The refusal of the Government to think radically means we are letting thousands of young boys and girls down.
"I am not persuaded that full legalisation is the way forward but what is necessary is that a more logical and evidence-based approach is needed which is less susceptible to whims of individual home secretaries ... The system does not work as it is."
The Chief Constable's verdict
* British drugs policy has been based upon prohibition for the last several decades – but this system has not worked well. Illegal drugs are in plentiful supply and have become consistently cheaper in real terms over the years.
* The number of drug users has increased dramatically. Drug-related crime has soared equally sharply as a direct consequence of the illegality of some drugs. The vast profits from illegal trading have supported a massive rise in organised crime.
* The ABC classification of drugs is said by the RSA Commission to be indefensible and is described as "crude, ineffective, riddled with anomalies and open to political manipulation". Most importantly, the current ABC system illogically excludes both alcohol and tobacco.
* Mr Brunstrom says: "If policy on drugs is in the future to be pragmatic not moralistic, driven by ethics not dogma, then the current prohibitionist stance will have to be swept away as both unworkable and immoral. Such a strategy leads inevitably to the legalisation and regulation of all drugs."
* The chief constable asserts that current British drugs policy is based upon an unwinnable "war on drugs" enshrined in a flawed understanding of the underlying United Nations conventions, and arising from a wholly outdated and thoroughly repugnant moralistic stance.
* He concludes: "The law is the law. In the meantime, I will continue to enforce it to the best of my ability despite my misgivings about its moral and practical worth."
UPDATE: Arguments for and against drug prohibition.
Shami Chakrabarti: You Ask The Questions
Shami Chakrabarti: You Ask The Questions
The director of Liberty answers your questions, such as 'Can torture ever be justified?' and 'What makes you sad?'
Published: 15 October 2007
Is there a case from a human rights perspective to try Bush and Blair for war crimes? Najinder Sander, by email
I'm not at all qualified to answer this question, not being an international lawyer, let alone an expert in the laws of war. Let's just say that if I were one of these gentlemen, I would probably get myself some legal advice.
What should happen if Osama bin Laden was apprehended in London? Rupert Fast, Esher
This one's easy. He should be charged with umpteen offences of murder, conspiracy and incitement to murder and put on trial. Yes, he would be granted the humane treatment that he has denied to thousands, but this would be an historic worldwide testament to our democratic values. He would know that we see him as a heinous criminal, but a common criminal nonetheless.
A terrorist suspect cannot be charged for lack of evidence and cannot be deported as he who comes from a country that practises torture. What should be done with him? Mike Pictor, Cheltenham
The devil is in the detail on this one. You say "terrorist suspect" but what exactly is the nature of the suspicions? Do they relate to what he's done or what he's about to do? Is he a suspected funder, inciter, conspirator or bomber? Clearly what we want is evidence with which to charge him or dispel our suspicions. Remember, it may well be possible to charge him with a lower level offence like attending a terrorist training camp if we can't yet prove the big conspiracy. One important decision might be whether to arrest him for such an offence or to put him under close surveillance. This surveillance might be covert (so that he leads us to more evidence), or overt (so that he knows not to put a foot wrong). I will never accept the counsel of despair that says the choice is between locking up a suspect (who may be innocent) indefinitely without charge or doing absolutely nothing.
A man has been arrested. He has planted a bomb in central London scheduled to go off at rush hour. Would you use torture to make him tell police where it was? If not, why not? Roger Fairclough, Liverpool
To my knowledge, this classic nightmare scenario has only ever arisen in Hollywood movies but is frequently used to justify the living nightmare of torture victims the world over. The bottom line is that in a human rights' framework filled with balances and qualifications, the one absolute is no torture; no compromise. This principle is the greatest distinction between democrats and tyrants.
Why do so many people remain unconcerned about the reduction of our individual freedoms? Roy Parizat, by email
We are fortunate enough to live in perhaps the oldest unbroken democracy on the planet. We've had our rights and freedoms for so long that it's easy to take them for granted.
Isn't your organisation just made up of privileged do-gooders and Oxbridge graduates, completely out of touch with real people? Keith Hall, Norwich
No. Liberty (the National Council of Civil Liberties) has a rather broader membership, united by shared values rather than education, class, race or even party politics.
What is your opinion of the 10 years of a Labour Government? Matthew Smithen, by email
Mr Blair left us the Human Rights Act but denigrated it in thought and word and deed. We got the Race Relations (Amendment) Act but poisonous anti-asylum policy and legislation for ID cards. Surely Mr Brown can do better?
You are a woman from an ethnic minority, but you lead a powerful organisation. What's the secret of your success? Rita Harvey, Sussex
You said it. It's the organisation that is powerful but not in the classic sense. Liberty's annual turnover is little more than £1m a year. It is independent of government and therefore has no statutory "power". Its strength comes from its members and staff sharing a set of principles that actually run very deep in this country. It has been a joy and privilege to be in the right organisation at such an important time.
Wouldn't you like to get involved in real politics one day and have a voice inside Parliament? Laura Connolly, by email
I don't think I'd be best suited to party politics.
Do you think the concept of individual civil liberties needs to change for the modern electronic era? Delash Patel, Wokingham
No. I don't believe that fundamental values need changing. However, I am concerned that technology advances very quickly and public education, ethical, political and legal debate lag too far behind.
Over-policing at the recent climate change camp clearly breached civil liberties for many peaceful protesters. What do you think citizens can do to reclaim the right to protest? Sandrine Levêque, London
Join Liberty. Protest even more. Write to your MP, chief constable and local newspaper.
Do you believe the Human Rights Act 1998 should be repealed? Alex Ustych, by email
Absolutely not. The myths about the Human Rights Act constitute some of the biggest lies ever told in Britain. The rubbish about it being alien and European when Churchill was the greatest proponent of the Convention on which it is based. The nonsense about rights without responsibilities when most rights are balanced and all demand our responsibility to protect the rights of others. The piffle about too much power to lawyers when the Act expressly prevents judges striking down Acts of Parliament.
Many left-wingers campaigned against Pinochet's Chile but not Videla's Argentina. To what extent is it objectively possible to discuss human rights without being ideologically biased? Nicholas Jones, by email
It's perfectly possible. It just takes a clear head and an even hand.
When did human rights turn into "civil liberties" anyway? Daniel Smith, Aberdeen
It's fascinating the way some people cling to one phrase and not the other. If we're talking about the civil and political rights in the Human Rights Act like free speech and protest, privacy, fair trials etc I don't see the distinction. The danger is of some people on the left and right of politics using "civil liberties" as a means of protecting just citizens or people they like, as opposed to all "human beings".
Why hasn't Liberty taken a stronger position on the question of the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" flights? Marcus Williamson, by email
Is it possible to have a "stronger position" on kidnap and torture than utter disgust, complete condemnation and ongoing efforts to uncover and outlaw any British complicity?
If the most powerful country in the world is regularly committing human right atrocities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay what hope is there of influencing less developed countries to change their ways when it comes to human rights? Russell Sheehan, Los Gatos, California
Indeed.
Do you ever worry that you've become overexposed?, Paddy Fletcher, Vauxhall
Whoops. Many thanks. Zips can be so unreliable.
Have there been any events in your own life that have made you such a keen defender of civil liberties? Marcus Corby, Kent
I've had an incredibly fortunate life. No persecution or profound injustice. My parents who saw cruelty and injustice, share their positive democratic values with me.
What saddens you about today's Britain, and what gives you hope? Mark Anderson, by email
It's sad when people turn a blind eye to profound injustice or when people are too casual about rights which their ancestors fought and died to defend. But I always burst with hope. People, in my experience, are generally more decent than not and Britain has an ancient tradition of rights and freedoms and I take great comfort from people across political, geographical and other lines who want the pendulum to swing back.
If ID cards will catch more fraudsters, illegal immigrants, simplify police investigations, protect us from terrorist outrages and make the nation a safer place to live in then what is the problem? Laurence Measey, by email
One big problem is that ID cards won't do any of these things. Nor will they deal with global warming or junk mail.
Will you resign in protest when ID cards are forced on us? Diarmuid Casey, by email
My job is to protest. Its hard to protest by giving up protest.
Will the media treat the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights seriously? David Cole, by email
I hope so.
Do you not agree that a surveillance state is inevitable? Joshua Darbo, Croydon
Some surveillance is inevitable. It is necessary, proportionate and lawful for very good cause. But we have been too casual with our precious personal privacy, which is essential to dignity, intimacy and other essentials.
Do you support the "right" for people to hunt with dogs? Amanda Young, by email
A human rights' analysis often helps to evaluate whether a particular policy has gone too far to be acceptable. But I don't think it decides every thorny political issue.
Some people regard you as a bit of a left-wing pin-up. How do you feel about this? Duncan Reader, Chepstow
Sticks and stones.
The director of Liberty answers your questions, such as 'Can torture ever be justified?' and 'What makes you sad?'
Published: 15 October 2007
Is there a case from a human rights perspective to try Bush and Blair for war crimes? Najinder Sander, by email
I'm not at all qualified to answer this question, not being an international lawyer, let alone an expert in the laws of war. Let's just say that if I were one of these gentlemen, I would probably get myself some legal advice.
What should happen if Osama bin Laden was apprehended in London? Rupert Fast, Esher
This one's easy. He should be charged with umpteen offences of murder, conspiracy and incitement to murder and put on trial. Yes, he would be granted the humane treatment that he has denied to thousands, but this would be an historic worldwide testament to our democratic values. He would know that we see him as a heinous criminal, but a common criminal nonetheless.
A terrorist suspect cannot be charged for lack of evidence and cannot be deported as he who comes from a country that practises torture. What should be done with him? Mike Pictor, Cheltenham
The devil is in the detail on this one. You say "terrorist suspect" but what exactly is the nature of the suspicions? Do they relate to what he's done or what he's about to do? Is he a suspected funder, inciter, conspirator or bomber? Clearly what we want is evidence with which to charge him or dispel our suspicions. Remember, it may well be possible to charge him with a lower level offence like attending a terrorist training camp if we can't yet prove the big conspiracy. One important decision might be whether to arrest him for such an offence or to put him under close surveillance. This surveillance might be covert (so that he leads us to more evidence), or overt (so that he knows not to put a foot wrong). I will never accept the counsel of despair that says the choice is between locking up a suspect (who may be innocent) indefinitely without charge or doing absolutely nothing.
A man has been arrested. He has planted a bomb in central London scheduled to go off at rush hour. Would you use torture to make him tell police where it was? If not, why not? Roger Fairclough, Liverpool
To my knowledge, this classic nightmare scenario has only ever arisen in Hollywood movies but is frequently used to justify the living nightmare of torture victims the world over. The bottom line is that in a human rights' framework filled with balances and qualifications, the one absolute is no torture; no compromise. This principle is the greatest distinction between democrats and tyrants.
Why do so many people remain unconcerned about the reduction of our individual freedoms? Roy Parizat, by email
We are fortunate enough to live in perhaps the oldest unbroken democracy on the planet. We've had our rights and freedoms for so long that it's easy to take them for granted.
Isn't your organisation just made up of privileged do-gooders and Oxbridge graduates, completely out of touch with real people? Keith Hall, Norwich
No. Liberty (the National Council of Civil Liberties) has a rather broader membership, united by shared values rather than education, class, race or even party politics.
What is your opinion of the 10 years of a Labour Government? Matthew Smithen, by email
Mr Blair left us the Human Rights Act but denigrated it in thought and word and deed. We got the Race Relations (Amendment) Act but poisonous anti-asylum policy and legislation for ID cards. Surely Mr Brown can do better?
You are a woman from an ethnic minority, but you lead a powerful organisation. What's the secret of your success? Rita Harvey, Sussex
You said it. It's the organisation that is powerful but not in the classic sense. Liberty's annual turnover is little more than £1m a year. It is independent of government and therefore has no statutory "power". Its strength comes from its members and staff sharing a set of principles that actually run very deep in this country. It has been a joy and privilege to be in the right organisation at such an important time.
Wouldn't you like to get involved in real politics one day and have a voice inside Parliament? Laura Connolly, by email
I don't think I'd be best suited to party politics.
Do you think the concept of individual civil liberties needs to change for the modern electronic era? Delash Patel, Wokingham
No. I don't believe that fundamental values need changing. However, I am concerned that technology advances very quickly and public education, ethical, political and legal debate lag too far behind.
Over-policing at the recent climate change camp clearly breached civil liberties for many peaceful protesters. What do you think citizens can do to reclaim the right to protest? Sandrine Levêque, London
Join Liberty. Protest even more. Write to your MP, chief constable and local newspaper.
Do you believe the Human Rights Act 1998 should be repealed? Alex Ustych, by email
Absolutely not. The myths about the Human Rights Act constitute some of the biggest lies ever told in Britain. The rubbish about it being alien and European when Churchill was the greatest proponent of the Convention on which it is based. The nonsense about rights without responsibilities when most rights are balanced and all demand our responsibility to protect the rights of others. The piffle about too much power to lawyers when the Act expressly prevents judges striking down Acts of Parliament.
Many left-wingers campaigned against Pinochet's Chile but not Videla's Argentina. To what extent is it objectively possible to discuss human rights without being ideologically biased? Nicholas Jones, by email
It's perfectly possible. It just takes a clear head and an even hand.
When did human rights turn into "civil liberties" anyway? Daniel Smith, Aberdeen
It's fascinating the way some people cling to one phrase and not the other. If we're talking about the civil and political rights in the Human Rights Act like free speech and protest, privacy, fair trials etc I don't see the distinction. The danger is of some people on the left and right of politics using "civil liberties" as a means of protecting just citizens or people they like, as opposed to all "human beings".
Why hasn't Liberty taken a stronger position on the question of the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" flights? Marcus Williamson, by email
Is it possible to have a "stronger position" on kidnap and torture than utter disgust, complete condemnation and ongoing efforts to uncover and outlaw any British complicity?
If the most powerful country in the world is regularly committing human right atrocities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay what hope is there of influencing less developed countries to change their ways when it comes to human rights? Russell Sheehan, Los Gatos, California
Indeed.
Do you ever worry that you've become overexposed?, Paddy Fletcher, Vauxhall
Whoops. Many thanks. Zips can be so unreliable.
Have there been any events in your own life that have made you such a keen defender of civil liberties? Marcus Corby, Kent
I've had an incredibly fortunate life. No persecution or profound injustice. My parents who saw cruelty and injustice, share their positive democratic values with me.
What saddens you about today's Britain, and what gives you hope? Mark Anderson, by email
It's sad when people turn a blind eye to profound injustice or when people are too casual about rights which their ancestors fought and died to defend. But I always burst with hope. People, in my experience, are generally more decent than not and Britain has an ancient tradition of rights and freedoms and I take great comfort from people across political, geographical and other lines who want the pendulum to swing back.
If ID cards will catch more fraudsters, illegal immigrants, simplify police investigations, protect us from terrorist outrages and make the nation a safer place to live in then what is the problem? Laurence Measey, by email
One big problem is that ID cards won't do any of these things. Nor will they deal with global warming or junk mail.
Will you resign in protest when ID cards are forced on us? Diarmuid Casey, by email
My job is to protest. Its hard to protest by giving up protest.
Will the media treat the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights seriously? David Cole, by email
I hope so.
Do you not agree that a surveillance state is inevitable? Joshua Darbo, Croydon
Some surveillance is inevitable. It is necessary, proportionate and lawful for very good cause. But we have been too casual with our precious personal privacy, which is essential to dignity, intimacy and other essentials.
Do you support the "right" for people to hunt with dogs? Amanda Young, by email
A human rights' analysis often helps to evaluate whether a particular policy has gone too far to be acceptable. But I don't think it decides every thorny political issue.
Some people regard you as a bit of a left-wing pin-up. How do you feel about this? Duncan Reader, Chepstow
Sticks and stones.
Going to See a Ghost
Going to See a Ghost
Majid Khan and the Abuses of the 'War on Terror'
By Gitanjali S. Gutierrez
Monday, October 15, 2007;
Today at Guantanamo Bay, I am supposed to meet a ghost.
Actually, Majid Khan -- whom I represent in my work as a lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights-- is still very much alive. Yet his legal status as a person entitled to basic rights is under grave assault. You see, Majid is one of dozens of people who have been held in secret CIA detention centers around the world. They are known as "ghost detainees" because our government hid them away from everyone, even the Red Cross. Their existence is an enduring reminder of the shocking abuse of power taking place in this nation.
Majid's story has become fairly well known. He was born in Pakistan; his family immigrated to the United States in 1996, when Majid was 16, and received asylum in our country. Majid went to Owings Mills High School, outside of Baltimore, where he learned about checks and balances and due process. He was an amateur DJ. And he was deeply attached to his Muslim faith.
In 2002, Majid went to Pakistan to marry. On March 5, 2003, he was kidnapped by Pakistani police, who turned him over to the CIA. Our government held him incommunicado at a secret CIA facility for more than three years. According to news reports, former CIA interrogators, government memos and admissions by President Bush, techniques such as simulated drowning, sleep deprivation, extreme temperature fluctuations, sexual humiliation and extended solitary confinement in cramped quarters -- practices that amount to torture under any reasonable definition -- were used at these facilities repeatedly, brutally and systematically. But during this entire period our government denied that Majid even existed. He was a ghost. His family did not know whether he was alive or dead.
Then, as abruptly as he disappeared, Majid reappeared. In September 2006, President Bush announced that Majid, along with 13 other "ghosts," would be transferred to Guantanamo Bay to face a military tribunal. The tribunals are meant to legitimize their detention but accomplish nothing of the sort. Any military commission Majid is to face will follow rules specifically designed to ensure that the government gets the outcome it seeks.
Moreover, the proceedings will be tainted with secrecy. A transparent trial would risk revealing the events surrounding Majid's detention and treatment while in CIA custody. The government's need for secrecy has nothing to do with Majid's alleged wrongdoing -- only the circumstances under which he was captured, hidden away and interrogated. He will continue to be held behind a shroud of secrecy to protect the CIA program under which he was originally detained. He is a prisoner being punished in order to protect his jailers. The logic is terrifying. And it is being done in the name of the American people.
At least Majid's family now knows he is alive. When I see him, it will be the first time he has been afforded the basic right of meeting with a lawyer. I am writing this column now because once I meet with my client, military regulations will restrict my ability to speak publicly about the case.
Over the past few years, while serving hundreds of Guantanamo detainees, lawyers at the Center for Constitutional Rights have wrestled with such gag orders. Obviously, we abhor the infringement of our clients' right to a fair and transparent process -- and of the public's right to hold government officials accountable for their acts. While we are prohibited from discussing details of our cases, nothing will stop us from denouncing this abuse of power and challenging the government's attempts to use secrecy to hide its criminal conduct. From the violation of habeas corpus to the use of torture to sham trials that mock the most basic rules of law, the executive branch under President Bush has assaulted the very foundations of our system of justice. This must end.
In the coming months, the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to reject these abuses and restore the rights envisioned by the Founders. I hope that at this critical time, the American people will make it known that while our president may have disdain for our Constitution, we the people still cherish it.
In literature, ghosts are symbols not only of mortality but also of accountability. Ghosts render judgment upon actions and compel us to mend our ways. For three years, Majid Khan was a ghost. Now he has reappeared. Let his terrifying experiences serve to remind us of the danger posed when power goes unchecked -- and of our duty not to be silent but to stand and fight for the fundamental rights that protect us all.
Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, a lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights, represents numerous detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. She was a member of the legal team in Rasul v. Bush and was the first habeas corpus lawyer to travel to Guantanamo, in 2004.
Hat-Tip to the Fink at Comment Central.
Majid Khan and the Abuses of the 'War on Terror'
By Gitanjali S. Gutierrez
Monday, October 15, 2007;
Today at Guantanamo Bay, I am supposed to meet a ghost.
Actually, Majid Khan -- whom I represent in my work as a lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights-- is still very much alive. Yet his legal status as a person entitled to basic rights is under grave assault. You see, Majid is one of dozens of people who have been held in secret CIA detention centers around the world. They are known as "ghost detainees" because our government hid them away from everyone, even the Red Cross. Their existence is an enduring reminder of the shocking abuse of power taking place in this nation.
Majid's story has become fairly well known. He was born in Pakistan; his family immigrated to the United States in 1996, when Majid was 16, and received asylum in our country. Majid went to Owings Mills High School, outside of Baltimore, where he learned about checks and balances and due process. He was an amateur DJ. And he was deeply attached to his Muslim faith.
In 2002, Majid went to Pakistan to marry. On March 5, 2003, he was kidnapped by Pakistani police, who turned him over to the CIA. Our government held him incommunicado at a secret CIA facility for more than three years. According to news reports, former CIA interrogators, government memos and admissions by President Bush, techniques such as simulated drowning, sleep deprivation, extreme temperature fluctuations, sexual humiliation and extended solitary confinement in cramped quarters -- practices that amount to torture under any reasonable definition -- were used at these facilities repeatedly, brutally and systematically. But during this entire period our government denied that Majid even existed. He was a ghost. His family did not know whether he was alive or dead.
Then, as abruptly as he disappeared, Majid reappeared. In September 2006, President Bush announced that Majid, along with 13 other "ghosts," would be transferred to Guantanamo Bay to face a military tribunal. The tribunals are meant to legitimize their detention but accomplish nothing of the sort. Any military commission Majid is to face will follow rules specifically designed to ensure that the government gets the outcome it seeks.
Moreover, the proceedings will be tainted with secrecy. A transparent trial would risk revealing the events surrounding Majid's detention and treatment while in CIA custody. The government's need for secrecy has nothing to do with Majid's alleged wrongdoing -- only the circumstances under which he was captured, hidden away and interrogated. He will continue to be held behind a shroud of secrecy to protect the CIA program under which he was originally detained. He is a prisoner being punished in order to protect his jailers. The logic is terrifying. And it is being done in the name of the American people.
At least Majid's family now knows he is alive. When I see him, it will be the first time he has been afforded the basic right of meeting with a lawyer. I am writing this column now because once I meet with my client, military regulations will restrict my ability to speak publicly about the case.
Over the past few years, while serving hundreds of Guantanamo detainees, lawyers at the Center for Constitutional Rights have wrestled with such gag orders. Obviously, we abhor the infringement of our clients' right to a fair and transparent process -- and of the public's right to hold government officials accountable for their acts. While we are prohibited from discussing details of our cases, nothing will stop us from denouncing this abuse of power and challenging the government's attempts to use secrecy to hide its criminal conduct. From the violation of habeas corpus to the use of torture to sham trials that mock the most basic rules of law, the executive branch under President Bush has assaulted the very foundations of our system of justice. This must end.
In the coming months, the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to reject these abuses and restore the rights envisioned by the Founders. I hope that at this critical time, the American people will make it known that while our president may have disdain for our Constitution, we the people still cherish it.
In literature, ghosts are symbols not only of mortality but also of accountability. Ghosts render judgment upon actions and compel us to mend our ways. For three years, Majid Khan was a ghost. Now he has reappeared. Let his terrifying experiences serve to remind us of the danger posed when power goes unchecked -- and of our duty not to be silent but to stand and fight for the fundamental rights that protect us all.
Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, a lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights, represents numerous detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. She was a member of the legal team in Rasul v. Bush and was the first habeas corpus lawyer to travel to Guantanamo, in 2004.
Hat-Tip to the Fink at Comment Central.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
X-convict
X-convict
By Erwin James
When a TV show contestant was dismissed for not disclosing a criminal conviction, the message to those in jail is - you're unwanted outside.
As grotesque as top-rated Saturday night family TV show X Factor is, I love it. Though I have to say I'm more comfortable watching now that the most exploitative stages are over. I confess to having laughed out loud at some of the efforts of the more socially challenged "contestants" in the early weeks. Indeed there were times when my side-splitting howling became almost uncontrollable. Memorable moments were the auditions by the corpse-like twins who sang (sorry, wailed) at funerals, the overweight apparently punch-drunk pub singer who looked ready to challenge judge Simon Cowell to a fisticuff duel for daring to describe him as, ahem, a pub singer - and the woman who, over a three-year period spent thousands on a voice coach only to be told by Cowell after her murderous rendition of a popular classic, "Refund is the first word that comes to mind."
I hated myself afterwards though. Who was I to rejoice in this ritual humiliation of naive and often patently vulnerable people? What right did I have to witness this cynical exposure of misguided vanities? But the glamour of the programme, the dazzling graphics, the power-growl voiceover, and the quartet of surgically "enhanced" (a moot point I know) pharaoh-like judges, does a great job of masking the questionable morality of this "reality" show. Which is why most of us still buy its sham aspirational message, that anyone can have a go, you never know, you just might have the X Factor - unless you have a criminal record of course.
This point was raised on Thursday while I was in a prison in the north-west of England. I had been invited in to present certificates of achievement to a number of prisoners who had excelled in a variety of activities in the jail. Some had worked hard transcribing written documents into braille for visually impaired readers. Others had created award-winning art works. Yet more had just behaved in an exemplary manner towards their fellow prisoners and staff, no mean feat on the rough and tumble of a prison landing. It was an impressive assembly and though I felt deeply honoured to be the certificate hander-outer, pangs of embarrassment too stabbed at the pit of my stomach. I didn't want anyone there to think that I thought that I was anyone special. Regardless, I thought I'd try and share some optimism with the group. I talked about my own experience of prison. "It was a long time," I said, about my 20-year stretch, "but I tried to see it as preparation for opportunity. Whatever you do," I said, "keep achieving all you can to give you the best chance of succeeding when you get back out there." I blathered on for a while longer and then took some questions.
A hand belonging to an intelligent-faced man at the back went up. "What is people's attitude to you out there when they know you have been in prison? Do they accept you?" he asked. The truth is some people who know me know that I have been in prison, others do not. On the other hand I have no idea if lots of people I know have ever been in prison. Mostly it is not an issue. "Well," I said, seizing my chance to sound encouraging, "I've found that people out there will accept you for who you are if you do what you are supposed to do, work hard and just do your best to do the right thing." I said that I knew that there were some attitudes that would never change, especially from people who have been victims of crime, and those people have a right to their views and their opinions. "But it's up to us, you, me, to prove to people that we are worthy of our place back out there," I said. "I'm not saying it's easy, but it's doable."
Immediately a hand went up at the front and its owner, a tall, thoughtful-looking man asked me if he could say something. I said he could say whatever he wanted. "They don't want us back out there man," he said, with a dispirited air. "Look at what happened last week on X Factor." He was referring to the moment in the show when Sisi Jghalef, a member of the all-girl group Hope, was summarily dismissed for failing to disclose that she had a criminal conviction. Jghalef had not completed her penalty of a period of community work. "I'm afraid we're going to have to ask you to leave," said the producer pompously as the usually spirited young woman sat on the other side of his desk almost quivering with trepidation. "Oh!" she exclaimed, wide-eyed and mortified when she was told the reason. The shot of her taking the long walk back out of the office was one of the most rotten bits of the whole series. "I know," I said, "I saw it. It stank."
It was a shame, I said, that the producers did not take a different tack and see it as an opportunity to demonstrate some real social conscience. They could have embraced Jghalef, supported her - perhaps involved her victims if possible to explore if there was a way forward, a way that they could assist in Jghalef's rehabilitation. The girl may have some talent. But to succeed in the music business takes guts and determination. Why couldn't the show's makers give Jghalef a chance to prove her worth and perhaps give us an example of the system working in a positive way? Instead they chose the easy option, to dismiss and discard. "A wasted opportunity if you ask me," I said.
As the man sat down I told the group something that they already knew, that if you succeed in benefiting from your prison experience you do it in spite of the system and not because of it. "You have many negative forces working against you," I said, "but many positive forces working for you." For the latter I meant the teachers, those prison officers that were well motivated to help instead of hinder, forward thinking governors (among whom were the organisers of that day's event). "It's not unlike that outside," I said, "to succeed you'll probably have to do it against the odds. But as well as people like the makers of X Factor, I emphasised the message, I promise you there are people out there who will accept you on your merits." To my relief this appeared to bring back a few smiles to solemn faces and then the event was over and the prisoners returned to their cells. On my way home afterwards I thought about the tens of thousands of other prisoners who would have seen the sacking of Sisi Jghalef and been disheartened and de-motivated by it. I wished I could have given them the same message.
By Erwin James
When a TV show contestant was dismissed for not disclosing a criminal conviction, the message to those in jail is - you're unwanted outside.
As grotesque as top-rated Saturday night family TV show X Factor is, I love it. Though I have to say I'm more comfortable watching now that the most exploitative stages are over. I confess to having laughed out loud at some of the efforts of the more socially challenged "contestants" in the early weeks. Indeed there were times when my side-splitting howling became almost uncontrollable. Memorable moments were the auditions by the corpse-like twins who sang (sorry, wailed) at funerals, the overweight apparently punch-drunk pub singer who looked ready to challenge judge Simon Cowell to a fisticuff duel for daring to describe him as, ahem, a pub singer - and the woman who, over a three-year period spent thousands on a voice coach only to be told by Cowell after her murderous rendition of a popular classic, "Refund is the first word that comes to mind."
I hated myself afterwards though. Who was I to rejoice in this ritual humiliation of naive and often patently vulnerable people? What right did I have to witness this cynical exposure of misguided vanities? But the glamour of the programme, the dazzling graphics, the power-growl voiceover, and the quartet of surgically "enhanced" (a moot point I know) pharaoh-like judges, does a great job of masking the questionable morality of this "reality" show. Which is why most of us still buy its sham aspirational message, that anyone can have a go, you never know, you just might have the X Factor - unless you have a criminal record of course.
This point was raised on Thursday while I was in a prison in the north-west of England. I had been invited in to present certificates of achievement to a number of prisoners who had excelled in a variety of activities in the jail. Some had worked hard transcribing written documents into braille for visually impaired readers. Others had created award-winning art works. Yet more had just behaved in an exemplary manner towards their fellow prisoners and staff, no mean feat on the rough and tumble of a prison landing. It was an impressive assembly and though I felt deeply honoured to be the certificate hander-outer, pangs of embarrassment too stabbed at the pit of my stomach. I didn't want anyone there to think that I thought that I was anyone special. Regardless, I thought I'd try and share some optimism with the group. I talked about my own experience of prison. "It was a long time," I said, about my 20-year stretch, "but I tried to see it as preparation for opportunity. Whatever you do," I said, "keep achieving all you can to give you the best chance of succeeding when you get back out there." I blathered on for a while longer and then took some questions.
A hand belonging to an intelligent-faced man at the back went up. "What is people's attitude to you out there when they know you have been in prison? Do they accept you?" he asked. The truth is some people who know me know that I have been in prison, others do not. On the other hand I have no idea if lots of people I know have ever been in prison. Mostly it is not an issue. "Well," I said, seizing my chance to sound encouraging, "I've found that people out there will accept you for who you are if you do what you are supposed to do, work hard and just do your best to do the right thing." I said that I knew that there were some attitudes that would never change, especially from people who have been victims of crime, and those people have a right to their views and their opinions. "But it's up to us, you, me, to prove to people that we are worthy of our place back out there," I said. "I'm not saying it's easy, but it's doable."
Immediately a hand went up at the front and its owner, a tall, thoughtful-looking man asked me if he could say something. I said he could say whatever he wanted. "They don't want us back out there man," he said, with a dispirited air. "Look at what happened last week on X Factor." He was referring to the moment in the show when Sisi Jghalef, a member of the all-girl group Hope, was summarily dismissed for failing to disclose that she had a criminal conviction. Jghalef had not completed her penalty of a period of community work. "I'm afraid we're going to have to ask you to leave," said the producer pompously as the usually spirited young woman sat on the other side of his desk almost quivering with trepidation. "Oh!" she exclaimed, wide-eyed and mortified when she was told the reason. The shot of her taking the long walk back out of the office was one of the most rotten bits of the whole series. "I know," I said, "I saw it. It stank."
It was a shame, I said, that the producers did not take a different tack and see it as an opportunity to demonstrate some real social conscience. They could have embraced Jghalef, supported her - perhaps involved her victims if possible to explore if there was a way forward, a way that they could assist in Jghalef's rehabilitation. The girl may have some talent. But to succeed in the music business takes guts and determination. Why couldn't the show's makers give Jghalef a chance to prove her worth and perhaps give us an example of the system working in a positive way? Instead they chose the easy option, to dismiss and discard. "A wasted opportunity if you ask me," I said.
As the man sat down I told the group something that they already knew, that if you succeed in benefiting from your prison experience you do it in spite of the system and not because of it. "You have many negative forces working against you," I said, "but many positive forces working for you." For the latter I meant the teachers, those prison officers that were well motivated to help instead of hinder, forward thinking governors (among whom were the organisers of that day's event). "It's not unlike that outside," I said, "to succeed you'll probably have to do it against the odds. But as well as people like the makers of X Factor, I emphasised the message, I promise you there are people out there who will accept you on your merits." To my relief this appeared to bring back a few smiles to solemn faces and then the event was over and the prisoners returned to their cells. On my way home afterwards I thought about the tens of thousands of other prisoners who would have seen the sacking of Sisi Jghalef and been disheartened and de-motivated by it. I wished I could have given them the same message.
Plan to put prisoners in court cells
Plan to put prisoners in court cells
Bid to ease jail overcrowding is 'cynical ploy' to protect PM, say Tories
Jamie Doward, home affairs editor
Sunday October 14, 2007
The Observer
The ministry of Justice has drawn up emergency plans to house prisoners in court cells in what the Conservatives last night claimed was 'a cynical attempt' to manage the jails crisis and buy Gordon Brown more time after a week of bad news.
The plan comes as the prison population touched 81,345 on Friday, above the 81,040 level at which the government was forced to release prisoners early in the summer.
There is now pressure on the Ministry of Justice to expand the use of the early release scheme which has seen thousands of prisoners leave jail 18 days early.
With options becoming limited, the ministry has again been forced to activate plans to turn court cells into makeshift prisons.
A private memo to prison governors last week said senior prison staff would be needed to oversee the use of cells at Highbury magistrates court. It also said it was studying plans to use cells in five other courts.
'We look at all options to manage the prison population and ensure the public is protected,' a Ministry of Justice spokesman said.
Conservative Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Herbert said: 'This cynical attempt at damage limitation will do nothing to solve the long-term crisis of prison overcrowding. The only reason the government is using unsuitable court cells to hold prisoners is because Gordon Brown doesn't want more bad press by extending the failed early release scheme. The irony is that he'll probably have to extend it anyway before long.'
Holding prisoners in police cells costs the taxpayer tens of millions each year. Currently, there are 268 prisoners in such cells.
Prison reform campaigners expressed dismay at the plan. 'One of the worst things that could happen to our overcrowded prison system would be to become the arena for party political jousting,' said Juliet Lyon, Director of the Prison Reform Trust. Last week's Comprehensive Spending Review confirmed the Ministry of Justice must save £1bn by 2011. The prison estate is already being asked to make cuts of £60m a year while finding another 9,000 prison places.
One plan, revealed by The Observer earlier this year, is to use 'pre-fabricated' prison cells made out of sea containers which can be slotted in to the existing prison estate.
Concerns have also spread to young offenders institutions. Tomorrow, the Howard League for Penal Reform will publish figures which reveal more than 18,000 assaults took place in them between 2003 and 2006. 'Small wonder children come out of custody brutalised, with reconviction rates within a year of almost 70 per cent,' said Frances Crook, director of the League.
Bid to ease jail overcrowding is 'cynical ploy' to protect PM, say Tories
Jamie Doward, home affairs editor
Sunday October 14, 2007
The Observer
The ministry of Justice has drawn up emergency plans to house prisoners in court cells in what the Conservatives last night claimed was 'a cynical attempt' to manage the jails crisis and buy Gordon Brown more time after a week of bad news.
The plan comes as the prison population touched 81,345 on Friday, above the 81,040 level at which the government was forced to release prisoners early in the summer.
There is now pressure on the Ministry of Justice to expand the use of the early release scheme which has seen thousands of prisoners leave jail 18 days early.
With options becoming limited, the ministry has again been forced to activate plans to turn court cells into makeshift prisons.
A private memo to prison governors last week said senior prison staff would be needed to oversee the use of cells at Highbury magistrates court. It also said it was studying plans to use cells in five other courts.
'We look at all options to manage the prison population and ensure the public is protected,' a Ministry of Justice spokesman said.
Conservative Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Herbert said: 'This cynical attempt at damage limitation will do nothing to solve the long-term crisis of prison overcrowding. The only reason the government is using unsuitable court cells to hold prisoners is because Gordon Brown doesn't want more bad press by extending the failed early release scheme. The irony is that he'll probably have to extend it anyway before long.'
Holding prisoners in police cells costs the taxpayer tens of millions each year. Currently, there are 268 prisoners in such cells.
Prison reform campaigners expressed dismay at the plan. 'One of the worst things that could happen to our overcrowded prison system would be to become the arena for party political jousting,' said Juliet Lyon, Director of the Prison Reform Trust. Last week's Comprehensive Spending Review confirmed the Ministry of Justice must save £1bn by 2011. The prison estate is already being asked to make cuts of £60m a year while finding another 9,000 prison places.
One plan, revealed by The Observer earlier this year, is to use 'pre-fabricated' prison cells made out of sea containers which can be slotted in to the existing prison estate.
Concerns have also spread to young offenders institutions. Tomorrow, the Howard League for Penal Reform will publish figures which reveal more than 18,000 assaults took place in them between 2003 and 2006. 'Small wonder children come out of custody brutalised, with reconviction rates within a year of almost 70 per cent,' said Frances Crook, director of the League.
Bloggers v the Mainstream Media
Bloggers v the Mainstream Media
Alisher Usmanov has claimed that blogger Craig Murray is insane, and has thrown down the gauntlet to Craig Murray to prove that he is sane enough to allow Alisher Usmanov the opportunity to sue him for libel for the accusations he has made against Alisher Usmanov in a book and on his blog.
Like Alisher Usmanov I am not a psychiatrist, therefore I am in no position to judge Craig Murray's mental state of mind. However, as I understand it, given that Craig Murray has made his accusations, the onus is upon Alisher Usmanov to sue for libel if he wishes to challenge what has been written about him. If Craig Murray then decides to argue that he is not guilty by reason of insanity, it would be up to the court to decide whether to accept this defence. I suspect that Craig Murray would not rely upon this line of defence, and one has to question why Alisher Usmanov has raised the issue of Craig Murray's insanity. Given that Alisher Usmanov has used the Sunday Times to launch his attack upon Craig Murray, I suspect that he has libeled Craig Murray by alleging that he is insane. Furthermore, I suspect that Craig Murray is in a better position to prove his accusations against Alisher Usmanov than the latter is to prove Craig Murray is insane.
Alisher Usmanov is not a diamond geezer "Last week he flew a party of journalists by private jet to the Moscow headquarters of his iron, steel, media and sports empire, and put them up at the five-star Kempinski hotel". This charm offensive cuts no ice with De Beers. Because he is now embroiled in a diamond fraud row in the US courts.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Watch this space...
Watch this space...
Like Mike Rouse I am interested in Mogulus and have signed up to produce my own TV channel called Blogging TV. So far, the only decent channel that I have been able to play with out it stopping and starting is the one below.
Like Mike Rouse I am interested in Mogulus and have signed up to produce my own TV channel called Blogging TV. So far, the only decent channel that I have been able to play with out it stopping and starting is the one below.
Chief Money Saver is a money waster
Chief Money Saver is a money waster
The head of the spending watchdog, Sir John Bourn, and his wife have been dining in London’s finest restaurants and travelling abroad first-class, costing the taxpayer almost half a million pounds.
No wonder there are calls for his resignation.
Even if it is accepted that someone in his position should be allowed to travel first class, there has been no explanation offered why his wife was also allowed to have her costs met by the taxpayers.
Public Accounts Commission Report here. Quote from the report "Cabinet Office rules state that spouse-accompanied travel at public expense is to be exceptional, and in practice it is understood to be rare". I would hardly call 24 trips in 3 years by Sir John Bourn's wife either exceptional circumstances or rare. Rather oddly, authority whether to take a spouse along on these trips rested with Sir John Bourn himself. In 5 years Sir John Bourn has treated his wife to almost £102,000 worth of holidays at the taxpayers expense. Add to that almost £90,000 in tax and insurance liability for his wife's travel.
Contrary to the MSM reports which claimed that the Public Accounts Commission conducted an inquiry into the conduct of Sir John Bourn, I can find no evidence that any such inquiry took place. There was a meeting and the minutes of that meeting are here. Therefore, it would appear that the conclusion claiming that there was no impropriety was a bit premature. "The Commission discussed the matter. It concluded that there was no evidence of impropriety in the use of public money, and that the expenditure had been in accordance with the existing rules on such expenditure". The expenditure, at least in so far as it related to Sir John Bourn's wife, was not in accordance with the existing rules.
How much is spent on whitewash?
And even more taxpayers money wasted here.
The head of the spending watchdog, Sir John Bourn, and his wife have been dining in London’s finest restaurants and travelling abroad first-class, costing the taxpayer almost half a million pounds.
No wonder there are calls for his resignation.
Even if it is accepted that someone in his position should be allowed to travel first class, there has been no explanation offered why his wife was also allowed to have her costs met by the taxpayers.
Public Accounts Commission Report here. Quote from the report "Cabinet Office rules state that spouse-accompanied travel at public expense is to be exceptional, and in practice it is understood to be rare". I would hardly call 24 trips in 3 years by Sir John Bourn's wife either exceptional circumstances or rare. Rather oddly, authority whether to take a spouse along on these trips rested with Sir John Bourn himself. In 5 years Sir John Bourn has treated his wife to almost £102,000 worth of holidays at the taxpayers expense. Add to that almost £90,000 in tax and insurance liability for his wife's travel.
Contrary to the MSM reports which claimed that the Public Accounts Commission conducted an inquiry into the conduct of Sir John Bourn, I can find no evidence that any such inquiry took place. There was a meeting and the minutes of that meeting are here. Therefore, it would appear that the conclusion claiming that there was no impropriety was a bit premature. "The Commission discussed the matter. It concluded that there was no evidence of impropriety in the use of public money, and that the expenditure had been in accordance with the existing rules on such expenditure". The expenditure, at least in so far as it related to Sir John Bourn's wife, was not in accordance with the existing rules.
How much is spent on whitewash?
And even more taxpayers money wasted here.
Alisher Usmanov is bent as a nine Schilling note...
Alisher Usmanov is bent as a nine Schilling note...
The corrupt law firm Schillings recently suffered even more damage to its already shady reputation, when it decided to take on the bloggers Craig Murray and Tim Ireland head to head and lost, in its attempt to silence criticisms about their Uzbekistan gangster client Alisher Usmanov. So, it tickled my sense of humour to read on Alisher Usmanov's own blog that his firm of lawyers are prepared to teach us a trick or two over a continental breakfast.
On the menu I noticed this:
"New threats and how to
protect against them
• The lawless internet
• Blogs and other social media
• Increased openness in court
proceedings and the ready
availability of court documents".
Ok, so the new threat to Alisher Usmanov, came from two bloggers Craig Murray and Tim Ireland who posted comments about him on their blogs. He either phoned and/or visited his lawyers Schillings, who's remedy was to legally threaten their ISP which resulted in their blogs being temporarily shut down. However, there was some collateral damage, that is, innocent bloggers such as Boris Johnson and Bob Piper who had not written about the Uzbekistan gangster Alisher Usmanov also had their blogs closed down because they were being hosted by Tim Ireland or Craig Murray and when the plug was pulled they also went down the drain. This fact irked other bloggers across the political spectrum. Whereas only two bloggers initially attacked the Uzbekistan gangster Alisher Usmanov and his crooked lawyers Schillings, now there was over 300 attacking them. So, Schillings advise on "New threats and how to protect against them" is to escalate the threat from two bloggers and in protecting against them enrage over 300 other bloggers? Right, so I would pay them good money for this kind of advice would I? Like fuck I would!
"The lawless internet - Blogs and other social media". If the internet was lawless, it is pointless employing a expensive firm of lawyers like Schillings because the law does not apply. The reality is that the internet is not lawless. Those blogs hosted by American ISPs have a greater freedom of expression than British blogs hosted by a British ISP, simply because the British laws of libel are designed to protect the corrupt rich and powerful people from freedom of expression.
I learned about the secrecy which governed prisons and the courts "hands-off" approach to prisoners rights from the inside. Therefore, I was glad when open reporting and disclosure of documents to the prisoner came into being as this allowed for legitimate legal challenges. Therefore, when a firm of lawyers is prepared to offer advice how to pervert the course of justice by interfering with "Increased openness in court proceedings and the ready availability of court documents" we should all be worried. If the Law Society was not already a client of the corrupt law firm Schillings it might have been worth asking them to investigate Schillings. However, this would only lead to the Law Society being judge in its own cause and a biased finding throughout its judgment.
My advice costs nothing. I suggest sticking up two fingers to Schillings. Reputation Management, my arse. If you already have a good one, it does not need legal protection because it stands up on its own merit. This is all about spin. People with dodgy reputations who seek to create a more acceptable image.
A honest firm of lawyers would not represent a crook in this way, and a honest man would not employ crooked lawyers.
The corrupt law firm Schillings recently suffered even more damage to its already shady reputation, when it decided to take on the bloggers Craig Murray and Tim Ireland head to head and lost, in its attempt to silence criticisms about their Uzbekistan gangster client Alisher Usmanov. So, it tickled my sense of humour to read on Alisher Usmanov's own blog that his firm of lawyers are prepared to teach us a trick or two over a continental breakfast.
On the menu I noticed this:
"New threats and how to
protect against them
• The lawless internet
• Blogs and other social media
• Increased openness in court
proceedings and the ready
availability of court documents".
Ok, so the new threat to Alisher Usmanov, came from two bloggers Craig Murray and Tim Ireland who posted comments about him on their blogs. He either phoned and/or visited his lawyers Schillings, who's remedy was to legally threaten their ISP which resulted in their blogs being temporarily shut down. However, there was some collateral damage, that is, innocent bloggers such as Boris Johnson and Bob Piper who had not written about the Uzbekistan gangster Alisher Usmanov also had their blogs closed down because they were being hosted by Tim Ireland or Craig Murray and when the plug was pulled they also went down the drain. This fact irked other bloggers across the political spectrum. Whereas only two bloggers initially attacked the Uzbekistan gangster Alisher Usmanov and his crooked lawyers Schillings, now there was over 300 attacking them. So, Schillings advise on "New threats and how to protect against them" is to escalate the threat from two bloggers and in protecting against them enrage over 300 other bloggers? Right, so I would pay them good money for this kind of advice would I? Like fuck I would!
"The lawless internet - Blogs and other social media". If the internet was lawless, it is pointless employing a expensive firm of lawyers like Schillings because the law does not apply. The reality is that the internet is not lawless. Those blogs hosted by American ISPs have a greater freedom of expression than British blogs hosted by a British ISP, simply because the British laws of libel are designed to protect the corrupt rich and powerful people from freedom of expression.
I learned about the secrecy which governed prisons and the courts "hands-off" approach to prisoners rights from the inside. Therefore, I was glad when open reporting and disclosure of documents to the prisoner came into being as this allowed for legitimate legal challenges. Therefore, when a firm of lawyers is prepared to offer advice how to pervert the course of justice by interfering with "Increased openness in court proceedings and the ready availability of court documents" we should all be worried. If the Law Society was not already a client of the corrupt law firm Schillings it might have been worth asking them to investigate Schillings. However, this would only lead to the Law Society being judge in its own cause and a biased finding throughout its judgment.
My advice costs nothing. I suggest sticking up two fingers to Schillings. Reputation Management, my arse. If you already have a good one, it does not need legal protection because it stands up on its own merit. This is all about spin. People with dodgy reputations who seek to create a more acceptable image.
A honest firm of lawyers would not represent a crook in this way, and a honest man would not employ crooked lawyers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)