There's gold in them thar jails: Ease prison overcrowding and save money
Finding cash behind bars
After decades spent getting tough on crime, some states are looking to save money by reducing their prison populations
Which politician this side of the pond is going to be brave enough to take the splash to save our nations cash?
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, February 17, 2009
England has turned itself into a penal colony
England has turned itself into a penal colony
George Monbiot argues...
England, that great colonising land, has itself become a colony
Only one of the UK's four nations is deprived of its own assembly. You need not love the place to call for it to have a parliament
An English Parliament? Why not, indeed!
George Monbiot argues...England, that great colonising land, has itself become a colony
Only one of the UK's four nations is deprived of its own assembly. You need not love the place to call for it to have a parliament
An English Parliament? Why not, indeed!
Judges possess the weapon to challenge surveillance
Judges possess the weapon to challenge surveillance
The British are the most spied upon people in the democratic world, but only the judiciary can restrain parliament
In times of heightened tension, caused by war, terrorism or other public emergency, ministers tend to exert their powers to the limits of what they believe to be politically acceptable and legally permissible. They are, very properly, concerned to ensure the survival of the nation and the safety of those within its borders. This is their public duty.
The practical test of political acceptability is the obtaining of parliamentary approval. This is not usually a problem, since public opinion is generally supportive of tough repressive measures in time of crisis. Thus, despite a warning by the joint parliamentary committee on human rights, parliament enacted part 4 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, providing for the indefinite detention without charge or trial of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism, while making no comparable provision for UK nationals similarly suspected. But there are limits, as evidenced by the government's ill-judged and ill-fated attempts to detain terror suspects for 90, and then 42, days without charge - pills that parliament declined to swallow.
The test of legal permissibility falls to be judged, ultimately, by the courts. But in times of crisis the courts too have tended to be uncritical of the executive. During both world wars judgments were given that would never have been given in quiet times, and the first half of the 20th century has been described as a period of judicial catatonia.
But the judges are also heirs of an older and nobler tradition. This is the tradition that led them to develop the remedy of habeas corpus, the most potent safeguard against executive tyranny the world has devised. It led them to develop a range of other remedies to control executive lawlessness, still best known by their old Latin names such as certiorari and mandamus. They are not, as David Blunkett surprisingly thought, "a modern invention ... substantially in being from the early 1980s". It is this tradition in which judges in 1765, for instance, struck down general search warrants issued by the executive...
Comment: Whilst I agree with most of what Bingers states, I don't agree that it is only the judges who can restrain Parliament. The People can as well...
The British are the most spied upon people in the democratic world, but only the judiciary can restrain parliament
In times of heightened tension, caused by war, terrorism or other public emergency, ministers tend to exert their powers to the limits of what they believe to be politically acceptable and legally permissible. They are, very properly, concerned to ensure the survival of the nation and the safety of those within its borders. This is their public duty.
The practical test of political acceptability is the obtaining of parliamentary approval. This is not usually a problem, since public opinion is generally supportive of tough repressive measures in time of crisis. Thus, despite a warning by the joint parliamentary committee on human rights, parliament enacted part 4 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, providing for the indefinite detention without charge or trial of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism, while making no comparable provision for UK nationals similarly suspected. But there are limits, as evidenced by the government's ill-judged and ill-fated attempts to detain terror suspects for 90, and then 42, days without charge - pills that parliament declined to swallow.
The test of legal permissibility falls to be judged, ultimately, by the courts. But in times of crisis the courts too have tended to be uncritical of the executive. During both world wars judgments were given that would never have been given in quiet times, and the first half of the 20th century has been described as a period of judicial catatonia.
But the judges are also heirs of an older and nobler tradition. This is the tradition that led them to develop the remedy of habeas corpus, the most potent safeguard against executive tyranny the world has devised. It led them to develop a range of other remedies to control executive lawlessness, still best known by their old Latin names such as certiorari and mandamus. They are not, as David Blunkett surprisingly thought, "a modern invention ... substantially in being from the early 1980s". It is this tradition in which judges in 1765, for instance, struck down general search warrants issued by the executive...
Comment: Whilst I agree with most of what Bingers states, I don't agree that it is only the judges who can restrain Parliament. The People can as well...
Whitehall devised torture policy for terror detainees
Whitehall devised torture policy for terror detainees
Binyam Mohamed is at the centre of Pakistani torture claims
MI5 interrogations in Pakistan agreed by lawyers and government
A policy governing the interrogation of terrorism suspects in Pakistan that led to British citizens and residents being tortured was devised by MI5 lawyers and figures in government, according to evidence heard in court.
As I was saying here and here.
Binyam Mohamed is at the centre of Pakistani torture claimsMI5 interrogations in Pakistan agreed by lawyers and government
A policy governing the interrogation of terrorism suspects in Pakistan that led to British citizens and residents being tortured was devised by MI5 lawyers and figures in government, according to evidence heard in court.
As I was saying here and here.
Government in attempt to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act
Government in attempt to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act
Let me get this straight, the Government is arguing that we make the police more effective by making them less accountable?
Data on police accidents and firearms no longer sent to Home Office
Police will no longer have to tell the Home Office how many road accidents involve officers or when police use firearms in a controversial bid to cut red tape.
This is not so much about cutting red tape as seeking to bury information. If the information is not available, journalists will not be able to obtain it using a request under the FOIA.
Don't be surprised if these burial mounds of hidden information spring up all around the country...
Let me get this straight, the Government is arguing that we make the police more effective by making them less accountable?
Data on police accidents and firearms no longer sent to Home Office
Police will no longer have to tell the Home Office how many road accidents involve officers or when police use firearms in a controversial bid to cut red tape.
This is not so much about cutting red tape as seeking to bury information. If the information is not available, journalists will not be able to obtain it using a request under the FOIA.
Don't be surprised if these burial mounds of hidden information spring up all around the country...
Monday, February 16, 2009
Breakdown in communication all around
Breakdown in communication all around
A man who attacked and sexually assaulted a woman in Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, after tricking his way into her home in May last year, has been given a Community Service Order by a judge.
The man who is profoundly deaf and does not understand sign language and has a foreign sounding name, probably failed to understand that his victim did not want sex with him.
Then there is another breakdown in communication between the National Offender Management Service (which the Probation Service now comes under) and the judge, and the judge rightly criticised their incompetence to do their job.
Now, I am not aware of all the facts. And, each case should be treated on its individual merits. Having said that, I do think that someone who tricks their way into a woman's house to attack and sexually assault her might just pose a risk to the public and women in particular. Given that "protection of the public" is what the Government states is what criminal justice is all about, I am left wondering if the judge has lost his senses and failed to communicate with the offender in a language he can understand?
A man who attacked and sexually assaulted a woman in Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, after tricking his way into her home in May last year, has been given a Community Service Order by a judge.
The man who is profoundly deaf and does not understand sign language and has a foreign sounding name, probably failed to understand that his victim did not want sex with him.
Then there is another breakdown in communication between the National Offender Management Service (which the Probation Service now comes under) and the judge, and the judge rightly criticised their incompetence to do their job.
Now, I am not aware of all the facts. And, each case should be treated on its individual merits. Having said that, I do think that someone who tricks their way into a woman's house to attack and sexually assault her might just pose a risk to the public and women in particular. Given that "protection of the public" is what the Government states is what criminal justice is all about, I am left wondering if the judge has lost his senses and failed to communicate with the offender in a language he can understand?
Derek Draper throws a tantrum and threatens Alex Hilton
Derek Draper throws a tantrum and threatens Alex Hilton
Hat-Tip to Iain Dale: "Draper's Downfall"
How prophetic the YouTube's title was given this next story...
Hat-Tip to Iain Dale: Alex Hilton Warned: "We'll Trash Your Reputation" Mr Hilton is the unwanted and poorer brother to Paris. Derek Draper is understood to have received his nickname "Dolly" from a cloned sheep. Gordon Brown is contesting paternity.
Goodbye Dolly...
P.S. Schillings go forth and multiply.
Hat-Tip to Iain Dale: "Draper's Downfall"
How prophetic the YouTube's title was given this next story...
Hat-Tip to Iain Dale: Alex Hilton Warned: "We'll Trash Your Reputation" Mr Hilton is the unwanted and poorer brother to Paris. Derek Draper is understood to have received his nickname "Dolly" from a cloned sheep. Gordon Brown is contesting paternity.
Goodbye Dolly...
P.S. Schillings go forth and multiply.
Portuguese lorry driver jailed for 3 years for killing family
Portuguese lorry driver jailed for 3 years for killing family
A Portuguese lorry driver who killed a family of six in a motorway crash in Cheshire has been jailed for three years.
Three years for a family of six, parole after 18 months, does not appear to be a severe enough penalty under the circumstances.
Having said that, at least this Portuguese man did face British justice. I cannot but help thinking about Madeleine McCann, and how her parents Gerry and Kate McCann escaped Portuguese justice.
A Portuguese lorry driver who killed a family of six in a motorway crash in Cheshire has been jailed for three years.
Three years for a family of six, parole after 18 months, does not appear to be a severe enough penalty under the circumstances.
Having said that, at least this Portuguese man did face British justice. I cannot but help thinking about Madeleine McCann, and how her parents Gerry and Kate McCann escaped Portuguese justice.
British Institute of Human Rights and Jack Straw exposed for what they really are
British Institute of Human Rights and Jack Straw exposed for what they really are
"There is no more important contribution that we can make to society than strong, publicly-spirited investigative journalism" (Tony Burman, editor-in-chief of CBC News).
This exposé is intended to highlight the hypocrisy surrounding human rights in this country.
Anyone with internet access and an interest in the topic of human rights might think that they have found gold at the British Institute of Human Rights (BIHR) website. Particularly after reading this self praise:
"BIHR is a human rights organisation that is committed to challenging inequality and injustice in everyday life in the UK. We aim to achieve this by bringing human rights to life – supporting people to use human rights principles and standards to improve their own lives and as a tool for organisations to develop more effective public policy and practice.
We believe that although human rights are inherent in us as human beings, their full value is lost unless we articulate, claim and actively use them in our everyday lives. Our driving ethos is to shift human rights from the realm of abstract, legal documents into living, breathing tools that individuals and organisations can use in all aspects of their lives. We believe that this will reduce individuals' suffering (e.g. children being bullied) and increase their empowerment (e.g. carers asserting their rights to preserve a family life whilst caring for a loved one). At a time when engagement with traditional political structures is declining, we are also excited by the potential for human rights to stimulate new ways to 'have a say' and influence society's direction.
Find out more about why human rights matter to people in the UK, what we do and how we can work together to bring human rights to life".
However, there is a difference between real gold and fool's gold. Just as there is a difference between organisations genuinely interested in human rights and those which claim that they are but under closer scrutiny are more interested in patting themselves on the back at staged talks and dinners. In my view, the BIHR falls into the second category and in spite of its charity status nevertheless is a fraud.
Let's examine the evidence: "BIHR is a human rights organisation that is committed to challenging inequality and injustice in everyday life in the UK". The BIHR held its annual national conference on 28 January 2009, and it was billed as "Changing the Face of Human Rights". Opening the conference, Ceri Goddard, Acting Director of BIHR, spoke about the different faces of human rights. I am more interested in those who are two-faced, saying one thing whilst doing the complete opposite. Like the BIHR and guest speaker Knee-Jerk Jack Straw. When I posted Knee-jerk Jack's keynote speech, "prisonguru" opined in the comments: "but still no vote for prisoners...? How he has the stones to lecture on human rights, and why people invite him to, beggars belief". He expressed my sentiments entirely. Article 3 of the European Convention is absolute: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". And yet, Jack Straw condoned CIA torture of suspected terrorists. That makes him a war criminal and he should have faced trial at a UN war crimes tribunal and not free to make a speech at the BIHR on human rights. Bearing in mind that Jack Straw is the Secretary of State for Justice, and that the Ministry of Justice website has this as its number one strategic aim to "strengthen democracy, rights and responsibilities", why is the so-called "responsible" Minister so far off target in this respect when it comes to convicted prisoners and their human rights to the vote?
The BIHR is guilty of selectively ignoring Article 10 of the Convention "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression". That is, at a BIHR conference, provided the speaker is Jack Straw. "BIHR is a human rights organisation that is committed to challenging inequality and injustice in everyday life in the UK". However, when I sought to speak to challenge Jack Straw the BIHR refused to allow this. My silence at the conference speaks volumes. The BIHR obviously supports and condones the breaches of human rights committed by this Government. This leads me to the conclusion that the BIHR is nothing more than a Government spin PR machine.
UPDATE: It is a pity that the BIHR advertises "Education Officer: Position vacant" because those at the BIHR do appear to lack education when it comes to human rights!
"There is no more important contribution that we can make to society than strong, publicly-spirited investigative journalism" (Tony Burman, editor-in-chief of CBC News).
This exposé is intended to highlight the hypocrisy surrounding human rights in this country.
Anyone with internet access and an interest in the topic of human rights might think that they have found gold at the British Institute of Human Rights (BIHR) website. Particularly after reading this self praise:
"BIHR is a human rights organisation that is committed to challenging inequality and injustice in everyday life in the UK. We aim to achieve this by bringing human rights to life – supporting people to use human rights principles and standards to improve their own lives and as a tool for organisations to develop more effective public policy and practice.
We believe that although human rights are inherent in us as human beings, their full value is lost unless we articulate, claim and actively use them in our everyday lives. Our driving ethos is to shift human rights from the realm of abstract, legal documents into living, breathing tools that individuals and organisations can use in all aspects of their lives. We believe that this will reduce individuals' suffering (e.g. children being bullied) and increase their empowerment (e.g. carers asserting their rights to preserve a family life whilst caring for a loved one). At a time when engagement with traditional political structures is declining, we are also excited by the potential for human rights to stimulate new ways to 'have a say' and influence society's direction.
Find out more about why human rights matter to people in the UK, what we do and how we can work together to bring human rights to life".
However, there is a difference between real gold and fool's gold. Just as there is a difference between organisations genuinely interested in human rights and those which claim that they are but under closer scrutiny are more interested in patting themselves on the back at staged talks and dinners. In my view, the BIHR falls into the second category and in spite of its charity status nevertheless is a fraud.
Let's examine the evidence: "BIHR is a human rights organisation that is committed to challenging inequality and injustice in everyday life in the UK". The BIHR held its annual national conference on 28 January 2009, and it was billed as "Changing the Face of Human Rights". Opening the conference, Ceri Goddard, Acting Director of BIHR, spoke about the different faces of human rights. I am more interested in those who are two-faced, saying one thing whilst doing the complete opposite. Like the BIHR and guest speaker Knee-Jerk Jack Straw. When I posted Knee-jerk Jack's keynote speech, "prisonguru" opined in the comments: "but still no vote for prisoners...? How he has the stones to lecture on human rights, and why people invite him to, beggars belief". He expressed my sentiments entirely. Article 3 of the European Convention is absolute: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". And yet, Jack Straw condoned CIA torture of suspected terrorists. That makes him a war criminal and he should have faced trial at a UN war crimes tribunal and not free to make a speech at the BIHR on human rights. Bearing in mind that Jack Straw is the Secretary of State for Justice, and that the Ministry of Justice website has this as its number one strategic aim to "strengthen democracy, rights and responsibilities", why is the so-called "responsible" Minister so far off target in this respect when it comes to convicted prisoners and their human rights to the vote?
The BIHR is guilty of selectively ignoring Article 10 of the Convention "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression". That is, at a BIHR conference, provided the speaker is Jack Straw. "BIHR is a human rights organisation that is committed to challenging inequality and injustice in everyday life in the UK". However, when I sought to speak to challenge Jack Straw the BIHR refused to allow this. My silence at the conference speaks volumes. The BIHR obviously supports and condones the breaches of human rights committed by this Government. This leads me to the conclusion that the BIHR is nothing more than a Government spin PR machine.
UPDATE: It is a pity that the BIHR advertises "Education Officer: Position vacant" because those at the BIHR do appear to lack education when it comes to human rights!
Keith Vaz in Guido-like car crash on Newsnight
Keith Vaz in Guido-like car crash on Newsnight
Keith Vaz you are a Plonker of the First Order! Fancy appearing on Newsnight to talk about something he has not got a clue about.
KW: Have you seen the film?
KV: No.
Duh!
Keith Vaz you are a Plonker of the First Order! Fancy appearing on Newsnight to talk about something he has not got a clue about.
KW: Have you seen the film?
KV: No.
Duh!
Prison plans spark safety fears
Prison plans spark safety fears
Public safety will be jeopardised by plans to change working practices in state-run prisons, the Prison Officers Association has warned.
I had to laugh at Brian Caton, General Secretary of the Prison Officer's Association, as he described working in a modern prison as being like working down a coal mine in the 1950s. The screws are rattling their cages again, always looking to take advantage of a government in disarray. I was also amused about the claim of "de-skilling and downgrading" the role of the prison officer. Trained monkeys can do a better job, and how do you downgrade the lowest of the low which prison officers are? Prison officers are renowned for their laziness. Over paid, over weight, and under worked. The private sector has shown that it is possible to reduce the over staffing employed in the public sector. Serco, for example, will employ 2 staff to do a job which the POA claims needs 6 or more staff to do.
Public safety will be jeopardised by plans to change working practices in state-run prisons, the Prison Officers Association has warned.
I had to laugh at Brian Caton, General Secretary of the Prison Officer's Association, as he described working in a modern prison as being like working down a coal mine in the 1950s. The screws are rattling their cages again, always looking to take advantage of a government in disarray. I was also amused about the claim of "de-skilling and downgrading" the role of the prison officer. Trained monkeys can do a better job, and how do you downgrade the lowest of the low which prison officers are? Prison officers are renowned for their laziness. Over paid, over weight, and under worked. The private sector has shown that it is possible to reduce the over staffing employed in the public sector. Serco, for example, will employ 2 staff to do a job which the POA claims needs 6 or more staff to do.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Police 'still institutionally racist'
Police 'still institutionally racist'
The police force is still institutionally racist despite efforts to tackle the issue, a review by the Runnymede Trust has claimed.
The report by the influential Runnymede Trust criticised the failure to promote and retain black officers and the overuse of stop and search techniques against black and multi-ethnic groups.
And some police forces are still "dragging their feet" when it comes to recording and reporting racist crimes, it was claimed.
The findings come from the Runnymede Trust review, 'The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry 10 Years On'.
Black teenager Stephen Lawrence was killed in an unprovoked racist knife attack by a group of white youths in April 1993.
Ten years ago, the Macpherson Inquiry severely criticised the police for its handling of the subsequent murder investigation.
The Runnymede Trust singled out the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for praise for its work on recording and monitoring data related to racist incidents.
But the review found that in the intervening years since the inquiry, there were still significant problems.
Why am I not surprised by this report's findings?
The police force is still institutionally racist despite efforts to tackle the issue, a review by the Runnymede Trust has claimed.
The report by the influential Runnymede Trust criticised the failure to promote and retain black officers and the overuse of stop and search techniques against black and multi-ethnic groups.
And some police forces are still "dragging their feet" when it comes to recording and reporting racist crimes, it was claimed.
The findings come from the Runnymede Trust review, 'The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry 10 Years On'.
Black teenager Stephen Lawrence was killed in an unprovoked racist knife attack by a group of white youths in April 1993.
Ten years ago, the Macpherson Inquiry severely criticised the police for its handling of the subsequent murder investigation.
The Runnymede Trust singled out the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for praise for its work on recording and monitoring data related to racist incidents.
But the review found that in the intervening years since the inquiry, there were still significant problems.
Why am I not surprised by this report's findings?
Let's not just talk about human rights let's actually possess and be able to enforce them
Let's not just talk about human rights let's actually possess and be able to enforce them
The 'faces of human rights' are explored at the British Institute of Human Rights conference
Changing the face of human rights
28 January 2009
The British Library, London
Jack Straw has given the keynote speech at the annual conference of the British Institute of Human Rights.
[Check against delivery: this is the prepared text of the speech, and may differ from the delivered version.]
The Right Honourable Jack Straw MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice:
Good afternoon.
It is a pleasure to be back at the British Library once again. Last time I was here was for the launch of this marvellous 'Taking Liberties' exhibition; it is a real treat to have another chance to see it.
I sometimes feel that we don't do enough to explain and celebrate the richness which is our constitutional history. Something which stood out for me throughout President Obama's inauguration speech was the sense of how close history was to hand. President Obama consciously echoed significant moments of America's past in his vision of America's future - as if the story of the United States was the guide and template for the next chapter about to be written. For theirs is a story which is quite literally written on stone, cast in public monuments, and retold in homes, in schools, in the admirable expressions of civic duty it has helped engender. Much of the solemnity and indeed the pageantry of the occasion was in commemoration of their nation's struggle for liberty.
But in the United Kingdom, we seem to be much less willing to celebrate our own story, so wonderfully brought together in this exhibition. I would love to see people queuing out of the door - as they do at the National Archives in Washington - to look upon our own constitutional documents: Magna Carta, the 1689 Bill of Rights, the Great Reform Acts, the 1998 Human Rights Act and to understand how vital they have been in carving out the freedoms we enjoy today. And I hope that when this exhibition is reprised in years to come, there will be a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities displayed alongside them.
What I want to do today is to discuss why we have embarked on this somewhat epic journey towards a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.
First, I want to look at the Human Rights Act and why we consider it to be the starting point rather than the destination, but also to consider why it hasn't captured a place in the public's affections.
Second, to elaborate more on the responsibilities side of the proposition. I have often made the case in support of rights, now I'd like to set out in more detail why we believe that responsibilities deserve greater prominence.
Third, to consider the symbolic value of Bills of Rights, and how they can act as a legal vehicle and a force for social change.
And finally, briefly to consider the process of developing a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.
Human Rights Act
I firmly believe that the Human Rights Act will stand as one of this government's greatest achievements, and I think that the history books if not necessarily the headlines will record this. It is an important point to restate. It is the point I was making in my recent interview with the Daily Mail which seemingly exercised many supporters of the Act.
As that paper commented I am 'swift to defend' the Act, which is not surprising given how much time and energy I have devoted over the years to bringing about the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law, first in Opposition and then in Office.
The Human Rights Act represented a step-change in the acquisition of effective rights. Prior to incorporation, accessing those rights via the Strasbourg court was a time-consuming, expensive and difficult process, and as such prohibitive for many. Now, Convention rights can be accessed in UK courts, heard by UK judges.
And they can be accessed by all sections of society; from the elderly couple split up by the local authority after 65 years of marriage, to the most lofty of newspaper magnates - in contrast to their newspaper's own editorial stance I should add.
I think that the British Institute of Human Rights should be commended for the tremendous work they do in drawing attention to, in their words: 'those ordinary people going about their day-to-day lives who are benefiting from the law, without necessarily resorting to the law'.
This is an important distinction, as along with providing a more practical mechanism to access rights, there is a broader cultural (as distinct from legal) benefit, in the positive obligation the Act puts on the state to treat people with dignity, equality and respect. Better prevention and a better cure.
But, it was William Blake who said that 'love to faults is always blind', and I think supporters of the Act would do well to have his caution in mind.
Those of us concerned to see that it endures should ask ourselves why - in spite of the manifest benefits - the Human Rights Act is held in less affection by the public. We should deal with that issue directly and not bury our heads in the sand. To acknowledge the unpopularity of the Act in some quarters, is not to cede to that view: to recognise that there is a perception out there that the Act is a 'villains' charter' is very different from accepting that is the reality.
The only way of challenging this view is to engage in debate at the point of criticism, to encourage a genuine dialectic. There is also a need to inject a dose of realism to a debate that can tend towards the abstract and the rarefied.
So why is it that the Act has an image problem?
Some of it is down to myth and misreporting: it is true that we hear much about people 'claiming their human rights', sometimes in the most absurd and inaccurate circumstances, but little about the outcome.
Some of it is down to misapplication: public authorities have made mistakes. It is a feature of rights based legislation that it is more visible in the breach than in the observance.
But some of it is down to the fact that - in the words I used with the Daily Mail - the Act is an Aunt Sally; unfairly blamed for a host of other issues. Tensions between rights would exist if there were no Human Rights Act, they are the price we pay for living in a civilised society, under the rule of law.
The Act has also been a victim of circumstance. As I said recently in a speech at an event run by Justice couple of months ago, 'the Human Rights Act has not had an easy childhood'. With the atrocities of 9/11 occurring less than a year into its operation, the consequence (for some), was a hardening of hearts towards fundamental human rights.
As I have just said, any mechanism through which to enforce rights inevitably leads to tensions, to conflicts of rights. People qualify for these basic rights not because they are good citizens but because they are human beings. But that does not always mean that they seem deserving of them. That is a fact which pre-dated 9/11. But what those events did was bring to the forefront of people's minds and onto their TV screens, an issue which had previously been there but on the periphery. For most people, this was an arcane, academic, marginal debate, with little influence on their daily life. 9/11 changed that, and the debate then became about whether terrorists themselves should be given the very rights they deny to others.
Why change is required
The environment today, therefore, is manifestly different from that in which the Act was made law in 1998 - let alone when the ECHR was drafted nearly 60 years ago. I have spoken at some length in my Mackenzie Stewart lecture, and also to the Guardian Human Rights conference last year about the history and etymology of the European Convention on Human Rights, so I shall not rehearse these at any length here. Suffice it to say that in the immediate aftermath of World War II, the European Convention on Human Rights was borne from the need to protect the individual from the arbitrary exercise of power by the state. As such it represents the pinnacle of the status of the individual.
Europe and the UK have changed immeasurably since the time of the European Convention on Human Rights. Broad social change - greater consumerism, globalisation, less homogeneity - have all contributed to what I have previously described as the 'commoditisation of rights'. As a result, I believe that a restatement of what binds us together as a society is ever more necessary.
In response to this changing context, the choice is stark: either rein back on rights and repeal the Human Rights Act as some propose, or build on it, not by reneging on rights but by elevating responsibilities as the Government proposes.
We have always seen the HRA as 'a floor and not a ceiling' as I said during the Second Reading of the Bill in 1998. We saw it as the starting point for the development of a wider culture of rights and responsibilities. At Commons 3rd Reading I was explicit about this when I said, in the context of a human rights culture, that 'there can be no rights without responsibilities and our responsibilities should precede our rights'.
A Bill of Rights and Responsibilities could reflect the full picture of rights and responsibilities we have in the United Kingdom, including across the Welfare State. It could reflect the new priorities for this century, like the well-being of children, or sustainable development - matters which were not priorities in the middle of last.
Emphasis on responsibilities
So let me now turn to why we consider responsibilities to be so fundamental a part of our proposed reforms.
Over the decades since the war there has been a gradual erosion of many of the informal social bonds that once held us together, the bonds of class, church, where we were born. These social structures were often the measure and arbiters of acceptable behaviour - what Bobby Kennedy famously described as 'the thousand invisible strands of common experience and purpose, affection and respect which tie men to their fellows'. These threads, however, must constantly come apart and re-form in new ways - that is the natural process of social advancement and change, not the symbol of social degeneration as some claim.
At the same time there has been considerable progress in the development of a legal and social architecture of rights internationally and at home – the strengthening of the status of the individual, if you will.
But what has been the effect?
It has led to an imbalance whereby the importance placed on our responsibilities has not developed commensurate to the expressions of - and the understanding of - our rights.
People are now well aware of what we are entitled to but less cognisant of those duties beholden upon us. 'Liberty means responsibility', wrote George Bernard Shaw, 'that is why most men dread it'. It is perhaps not surprising that we have so far been less willing to accept what we owe than what we are owed.
We are approaching the point whereby we are in danger of jeopardising the reputation and ultimately operation of rights unless we change this seeming imbalance. The concern is that people will undervalue at best, devalue or dismiss at worst, the notion of fundamental human rights.
The question arises therefore: how do we elevate the significance and status of responsibilities - so they are seen as every bit as integral to our social framework as rights - without making rights contingent upon responsibilities?
We do not want to see fewer rights, or a more heavily qualified set of rights - we recognise that there is a hard deck, a minimum and common standard set by the European Convention on Human Rights.
What we can do is to raise our responsibilities to each other in a symbolic and declaratory way alongside the rights we so value: to put them explicitly on a constitutional footing.
The clearest symbol would be to place rights and responsibilities in one document - a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities - together, side by side, and regarded with similar importance. Comparable but not contingent.
Some in the field of human rights appear to recoil at the very mention of responsibilities in the same sentence as rights.
But throughout the ages, rights and responsibilities have been seen together. Take Jeremy Bentham: 'Rights and obligations, though distinct and opposite in their nature, are simultaneous in their origin, and inseparable in their existence'.
Or Thomas Paine: 'A Declaration of Rights is, by reciprocity, a declaration of duties also. Whatever is my right as a man is also the right of another and it becomes my duty to guarantee as well as to possess' [The Times, 13 November 2007].
The issue is that they are sotto voce, implied, inherent. If they are already the 'other side of the same coin that stipulates our fundamental human rights and freedoms' [Professor Robert Blackburn, evidence to Joint Committee on Human Rights, 29th report at 260], why should this not be made more prominent, explicit and clearly articulated? This is not to make rights 'earned' any more than they already are.
As David Pannick has argued, a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities would 'emphasise that human rights law involves a balance between rights and responsibilities, as the case law under the European Convention recognises'.
Indeed the European Convention on Human Rights itself, not least Article 10.2, states that 'the exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, maybe subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society'.
Equity
We are currently exploring ways in which the courts could potentially give greater regard to responsibilities whilst falling short of making them justiciable. This is not a concept alien to our legal tradition. Take the development of the law of equity by way of analogy.
The Law of Equity in developed in the Middle Ages in response to the limitations of common law which, due to its inflexibility, would sometimes lead to unfair results, particularly as the common law then generally only had one remedy; that of damages. There are times when remuneration is inadequate, particularly when true justice requires for certain behaviours to be prevented rather than recompense for damages done.
The principle goes even further back to the very basis of our law; 'Aristotle had written of it as a means of correcting general laws which in their nature could not provide for every eventuality; in particular it required written laws to be interpreted according to the intention rather than the letter' [JH Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History, p106].
These guiding principles hardened over centuries into the Maxims of Equity, beloved of all law students. For example, the principle applied by the courts in equity cases is that 'he who comes to equity must come with clean hands'. In this way, consideration of the behaviour of both parties to a claim is already well established in the British legal tradition, indeed it was a development led by the courts themselves.
Maxims of equity are often expressed as 'natural law', which has developed over time as fundamental principles of justice. It is a representation of society's instinctive understanding of and desire for fairness - going beyond that which the lawmakers hand down.
Symbolic value
Even without full justiciability words themselves can have a political and moral weight - look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It contained no legally enforceable rights, rather, it was the global expression of a shared commitment - an enormously powerful symbol and recognition of mankind's common dignity.
The significance of a document can go way beyond the words contained within it. As Philip Alston has argued, Bills of Rights must be a 'combination of law, symbolism and aspiration'. Or as Francesca Klug once memorably put it - 'they need to touch the parts other Bills don't reach'.
Just look at the constitutional documents in the US - they are imbued with a significance which is greater than their legal or interpretative effect, they are cultural every bit as much as legal documents, history as much as law. Or more recently the Canadian or South African Bills of Rights - which have acted as both the symbol and mechanism of national unity.
In the longer term, in the UK, if we have a new constitutional document in a new constitutional architecture which gives greater status, prominence and significance to responsibilities - elevating them in the same way as hard fought rights - this will articulate to society at large the obligations we owe to each other as human beings in a modern, liberal democracy, and the importance we collectively hold by them.
A Bill of Rights and Responsibilities could be emblematic of the fair society we want to live in, where awareness of rights are matched with understanding of responsibility. A society where people aren't just aware of what we are due but a society where people are also recognise what we owe to one another.
It is a process of renewal which other advanced democracies are undergoing - no longer as a product of war, revolution or social strife, but out of a desire to see the achievements of the past 50 years made safe for the next. The Dutch government is currently developing a 'Charter for Responsible Citizenship' as a counterpart to the rights guaranteed by their constitution. The Charter is not intended to be a formal document with direct legal or even normative effect. It aims to stimulate social change by increasing individuals' understanding of their responsibilities to one another and to society as a whole.
Conclusion - the process
I said at the outset that I wanted the process by which we develop the Bill of Rights and Responsibilities to be a genuine dialectic. So I make no apology for the delay in publishing the Green Paper which outlines the government's thinking in this area. We are dealing here with the fundamental building blocks of our constitution, and it goes without saying it is something we need to get right.
I am very grateful indeed for the contributions already made by the British Institute, the British Library and indeed many others in this room. And I look forward indeed to the responses to the Green Paper.
But if this entire process is to work, it needs to have legitimacy in the eyes of the public. And that means making the case for why we need a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities and giving them a stake in the process. Just as fundamental human rights are not in the gift of governments or lawyers, the public must have sense of ownership over a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities if it is to become a defining constitutional document of our times.
I do not dismiss ideas about the many different forms this process might take; but I do believe that if one is to build up a political consensus, and develop democratic legitimacy, the process necessarily has to be initiated by government and Parliament. But it will not succeed unless individuals and organisations across the country, not least those here today, are able to help to secure the necessary broad public consent across UK society that can ensure that any Bill of Rights and Responsibilities endures.
The 'faces of human rights' are explored at the British Institute of Human Rights conference
Changing the face of human rights
28 January 2009
The British Library, London
Jack Straw has given the keynote speech at the annual conference of the British Institute of Human Rights.
[Check against delivery: this is the prepared text of the speech, and may differ from the delivered version.]
The Right Honourable Jack Straw MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice:
Good afternoon.
It is a pleasure to be back at the British Library once again. Last time I was here was for the launch of this marvellous 'Taking Liberties' exhibition; it is a real treat to have another chance to see it.
I sometimes feel that we don't do enough to explain and celebrate the richness which is our constitutional history. Something which stood out for me throughout President Obama's inauguration speech was the sense of how close history was to hand. President Obama consciously echoed significant moments of America's past in his vision of America's future - as if the story of the United States was the guide and template for the next chapter about to be written. For theirs is a story which is quite literally written on stone, cast in public monuments, and retold in homes, in schools, in the admirable expressions of civic duty it has helped engender. Much of the solemnity and indeed the pageantry of the occasion was in commemoration of their nation's struggle for liberty.
But in the United Kingdom, we seem to be much less willing to celebrate our own story, so wonderfully brought together in this exhibition. I would love to see people queuing out of the door - as they do at the National Archives in Washington - to look upon our own constitutional documents: Magna Carta, the 1689 Bill of Rights, the Great Reform Acts, the 1998 Human Rights Act and to understand how vital they have been in carving out the freedoms we enjoy today. And I hope that when this exhibition is reprised in years to come, there will be a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities displayed alongside them.
What I want to do today is to discuss why we have embarked on this somewhat epic journey towards a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.
First, I want to look at the Human Rights Act and why we consider it to be the starting point rather than the destination, but also to consider why it hasn't captured a place in the public's affections.
Second, to elaborate more on the responsibilities side of the proposition. I have often made the case in support of rights, now I'd like to set out in more detail why we believe that responsibilities deserve greater prominence.
Third, to consider the symbolic value of Bills of Rights, and how they can act as a legal vehicle and a force for social change.
And finally, briefly to consider the process of developing a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.
Human Rights Act
I firmly believe that the Human Rights Act will stand as one of this government's greatest achievements, and I think that the history books if not necessarily the headlines will record this. It is an important point to restate. It is the point I was making in my recent interview with the Daily Mail which seemingly exercised many supporters of the Act.
As that paper commented I am 'swift to defend' the Act, which is not surprising given how much time and energy I have devoted over the years to bringing about the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law, first in Opposition and then in Office.
The Human Rights Act represented a step-change in the acquisition of effective rights. Prior to incorporation, accessing those rights via the Strasbourg court was a time-consuming, expensive and difficult process, and as such prohibitive for many. Now, Convention rights can be accessed in UK courts, heard by UK judges.
And they can be accessed by all sections of society; from the elderly couple split up by the local authority after 65 years of marriage, to the most lofty of newspaper magnates - in contrast to their newspaper's own editorial stance I should add.
I think that the British Institute of Human Rights should be commended for the tremendous work they do in drawing attention to, in their words: 'those ordinary people going about their day-to-day lives who are benefiting from the law, without necessarily resorting to the law'.
This is an important distinction, as along with providing a more practical mechanism to access rights, there is a broader cultural (as distinct from legal) benefit, in the positive obligation the Act puts on the state to treat people with dignity, equality and respect. Better prevention and a better cure.
But, it was William Blake who said that 'love to faults is always blind', and I think supporters of the Act would do well to have his caution in mind.
Those of us concerned to see that it endures should ask ourselves why - in spite of the manifest benefits - the Human Rights Act is held in less affection by the public. We should deal with that issue directly and not bury our heads in the sand. To acknowledge the unpopularity of the Act in some quarters, is not to cede to that view: to recognise that there is a perception out there that the Act is a 'villains' charter' is very different from accepting that is the reality.
The only way of challenging this view is to engage in debate at the point of criticism, to encourage a genuine dialectic. There is also a need to inject a dose of realism to a debate that can tend towards the abstract and the rarefied.
So why is it that the Act has an image problem?
Some of it is down to myth and misreporting: it is true that we hear much about people 'claiming their human rights', sometimes in the most absurd and inaccurate circumstances, but little about the outcome.
Some of it is down to misapplication: public authorities have made mistakes. It is a feature of rights based legislation that it is more visible in the breach than in the observance.
But some of it is down to the fact that - in the words I used with the Daily Mail - the Act is an Aunt Sally; unfairly blamed for a host of other issues. Tensions between rights would exist if there were no Human Rights Act, they are the price we pay for living in a civilised society, under the rule of law.
The Act has also been a victim of circumstance. As I said recently in a speech at an event run by Justice couple of months ago, 'the Human Rights Act has not had an easy childhood'. With the atrocities of 9/11 occurring less than a year into its operation, the consequence (for some), was a hardening of hearts towards fundamental human rights.
As I have just said, any mechanism through which to enforce rights inevitably leads to tensions, to conflicts of rights. People qualify for these basic rights not because they are good citizens but because they are human beings. But that does not always mean that they seem deserving of them. That is a fact which pre-dated 9/11. But what those events did was bring to the forefront of people's minds and onto their TV screens, an issue which had previously been there but on the periphery. For most people, this was an arcane, academic, marginal debate, with little influence on their daily life. 9/11 changed that, and the debate then became about whether terrorists themselves should be given the very rights they deny to others.
Why change is required
The environment today, therefore, is manifestly different from that in which the Act was made law in 1998 - let alone when the ECHR was drafted nearly 60 years ago. I have spoken at some length in my Mackenzie Stewart lecture, and also to the Guardian Human Rights conference last year about the history and etymology of the European Convention on Human Rights, so I shall not rehearse these at any length here. Suffice it to say that in the immediate aftermath of World War II, the European Convention on Human Rights was borne from the need to protect the individual from the arbitrary exercise of power by the state. As such it represents the pinnacle of the status of the individual.
Europe and the UK have changed immeasurably since the time of the European Convention on Human Rights. Broad social change - greater consumerism, globalisation, less homogeneity - have all contributed to what I have previously described as the 'commoditisation of rights'. As a result, I believe that a restatement of what binds us together as a society is ever more necessary.
In response to this changing context, the choice is stark: either rein back on rights and repeal the Human Rights Act as some propose, or build on it, not by reneging on rights but by elevating responsibilities as the Government proposes.
We have always seen the HRA as 'a floor and not a ceiling' as I said during the Second Reading of the Bill in 1998. We saw it as the starting point for the development of a wider culture of rights and responsibilities. At Commons 3rd Reading I was explicit about this when I said, in the context of a human rights culture, that 'there can be no rights without responsibilities and our responsibilities should precede our rights'.
A Bill of Rights and Responsibilities could reflect the full picture of rights and responsibilities we have in the United Kingdom, including across the Welfare State. It could reflect the new priorities for this century, like the well-being of children, or sustainable development - matters which were not priorities in the middle of last.
Emphasis on responsibilities
So let me now turn to why we consider responsibilities to be so fundamental a part of our proposed reforms.
Over the decades since the war there has been a gradual erosion of many of the informal social bonds that once held us together, the bonds of class, church, where we were born. These social structures were often the measure and arbiters of acceptable behaviour - what Bobby Kennedy famously described as 'the thousand invisible strands of common experience and purpose, affection and respect which tie men to their fellows'. These threads, however, must constantly come apart and re-form in new ways - that is the natural process of social advancement and change, not the symbol of social degeneration as some claim.
At the same time there has been considerable progress in the development of a legal and social architecture of rights internationally and at home – the strengthening of the status of the individual, if you will.
But what has been the effect?
It has led to an imbalance whereby the importance placed on our responsibilities has not developed commensurate to the expressions of - and the understanding of - our rights.
People are now well aware of what we are entitled to but less cognisant of those duties beholden upon us. 'Liberty means responsibility', wrote George Bernard Shaw, 'that is why most men dread it'. It is perhaps not surprising that we have so far been less willing to accept what we owe than what we are owed.
We are approaching the point whereby we are in danger of jeopardising the reputation and ultimately operation of rights unless we change this seeming imbalance. The concern is that people will undervalue at best, devalue or dismiss at worst, the notion of fundamental human rights.
The question arises therefore: how do we elevate the significance and status of responsibilities - so they are seen as every bit as integral to our social framework as rights - without making rights contingent upon responsibilities?
We do not want to see fewer rights, or a more heavily qualified set of rights - we recognise that there is a hard deck, a minimum and common standard set by the European Convention on Human Rights.
What we can do is to raise our responsibilities to each other in a symbolic and declaratory way alongside the rights we so value: to put them explicitly on a constitutional footing.
The clearest symbol would be to place rights and responsibilities in one document - a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities - together, side by side, and regarded with similar importance. Comparable but not contingent.
Some in the field of human rights appear to recoil at the very mention of responsibilities in the same sentence as rights.
But throughout the ages, rights and responsibilities have been seen together. Take Jeremy Bentham: 'Rights and obligations, though distinct and opposite in their nature, are simultaneous in their origin, and inseparable in their existence'.
Or Thomas Paine: 'A Declaration of Rights is, by reciprocity, a declaration of duties also. Whatever is my right as a man is also the right of another and it becomes my duty to guarantee as well as to possess' [The Times, 13 November 2007].
The issue is that they are sotto voce, implied, inherent. If they are already the 'other side of the same coin that stipulates our fundamental human rights and freedoms' [Professor Robert Blackburn, evidence to Joint Committee on Human Rights, 29th report at 260], why should this not be made more prominent, explicit and clearly articulated? This is not to make rights 'earned' any more than they already are.
As David Pannick has argued, a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities would 'emphasise that human rights law involves a balance between rights and responsibilities, as the case law under the European Convention recognises'.
Indeed the European Convention on Human Rights itself, not least Article 10.2, states that 'the exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, maybe subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society'.
Equity
We are currently exploring ways in which the courts could potentially give greater regard to responsibilities whilst falling short of making them justiciable. This is not a concept alien to our legal tradition. Take the development of the law of equity by way of analogy.
The Law of Equity in developed in the Middle Ages in response to the limitations of common law which, due to its inflexibility, would sometimes lead to unfair results, particularly as the common law then generally only had one remedy; that of damages. There are times when remuneration is inadequate, particularly when true justice requires for certain behaviours to be prevented rather than recompense for damages done.
The principle goes even further back to the very basis of our law; 'Aristotle had written of it as a means of correcting general laws which in their nature could not provide for every eventuality; in particular it required written laws to be interpreted according to the intention rather than the letter' [JH Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History, p106].
These guiding principles hardened over centuries into the Maxims of Equity, beloved of all law students. For example, the principle applied by the courts in equity cases is that 'he who comes to equity must come with clean hands'. In this way, consideration of the behaviour of both parties to a claim is already well established in the British legal tradition, indeed it was a development led by the courts themselves.
Maxims of equity are often expressed as 'natural law', which has developed over time as fundamental principles of justice. It is a representation of society's instinctive understanding of and desire for fairness - going beyond that which the lawmakers hand down.
Symbolic value
Even without full justiciability words themselves can have a political and moral weight - look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It contained no legally enforceable rights, rather, it was the global expression of a shared commitment - an enormously powerful symbol and recognition of mankind's common dignity.
The significance of a document can go way beyond the words contained within it. As Philip Alston has argued, Bills of Rights must be a 'combination of law, symbolism and aspiration'. Or as Francesca Klug once memorably put it - 'they need to touch the parts other Bills don't reach'.
Just look at the constitutional documents in the US - they are imbued with a significance which is greater than their legal or interpretative effect, they are cultural every bit as much as legal documents, history as much as law. Or more recently the Canadian or South African Bills of Rights - which have acted as both the symbol and mechanism of national unity.
In the longer term, in the UK, if we have a new constitutional document in a new constitutional architecture which gives greater status, prominence and significance to responsibilities - elevating them in the same way as hard fought rights - this will articulate to society at large the obligations we owe to each other as human beings in a modern, liberal democracy, and the importance we collectively hold by them.
A Bill of Rights and Responsibilities could be emblematic of the fair society we want to live in, where awareness of rights are matched with understanding of responsibility. A society where people aren't just aware of what we are due but a society where people are also recognise what we owe to one another.
It is a process of renewal which other advanced democracies are undergoing - no longer as a product of war, revolution or social strife, but out of a desire to see the achievements of the past 50 years made safe for the next. The Dutch government is currently developing a 'Charter for Responsible Citizenship' as a counterpart to the rights guaranteed by their constitution. The Charter is not intended to be a formal document with direct legal or even normative effect. It aims to stimulate social change by increasing individuals' understanding of their responsibilities to one another and to society as a whole.
Conclusion - the process
I said at the outset that I wanted the process by which we develop the Bill of Rights and Responsibilities to be a genuine dialectic. So I make no apology for the delay in publishing the Green Paper which outlines the government's thinking in this area. We are dealing here with the fundamental building blocks of our constitution, and it goes without saying it is something we need to get right.
I am very grateful indeed for the contributions already made by the British Institute, the British Library and indeed many others in this room. And I look forward indeed to the responses to the Green Paper.
But if this entire process is to work, it needs to have legitimacy in the eyes of the public. And that means making the case for why we need a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities and giving them a stake in the process. Just as fundamental human rights are not in the gift of governments or lawyers, the public must have sense of ownership over a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities if it is to become a defining constitutional document of our times.
I do not dismiss ideas about the many different forms this process might take; but I do believe that if one is to build up a political consensus, and develop democratic legitimacy, the process necessarily has to be initiated by government and Parliament. But it will not succeed unless individuals and organisations across the country, not least those here today, are able to help to secure the necessary broad public consent across UK society that can ensure that any Bill of Rights and Responsibilities endures.
Don't imprison their minds
Don't imprison their minds
Access to literature can change prisoners' lives – the Tories are wrong to advocate a restriction on books they can read
So, the Conservative party are up in arms at the news that prisoners have access to books about crime, including some actually written by criminals. Now there's a surprise – who would have imagined that some of those incarcerated for breaking the law might want to read about the doings of other miscreants?...
...Shadow justice minister Dominic Grieve thinks it "beggars belief" that books glorifying crime and violence are freely available to prisoners. Get a life Mr Grieve and please don't encourage Jack Straw to curtail any more of the few "freedoms" prisoners still enjoy. The pair of you should remember that the loss of liberty is the punishment. You'll be telling prisoners what they can and cannot think next.
Access to literature certainly changed my life for the better. John McVicar is another example who benefited, as did Jimmy Boyle and Erwin James.
Access to literature can change prisoners' lives – the Tories are wrong to advocate a restriction on books they can read
So, the Conservative party are up in arms at the news that prisoners have access to books about crime, including some actually written by criminals. Now there's a surprise – who would have imagined that some of those incarcerated for breaking the law might want to read about the doings of other miscreants?...
...Shadow justice minister Dominic Grieve thinks it "beggars belief" that books glorifying crime and violence are freely available to prisoners. Get a life Mr Grieve and please don't encourage Jack Straw to curtail any more of the few "freedoms" prisoners still enjoy. The pair of you should remember that the loss of liberty is the punishment. You'll be telling prisoners what they can and cannot think next.
Access to literature certainly changed my life for the better. John McVicar is another example who benefited, as did Jimmy Boyle and Erwin James.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Happy St Valentine's Day
Happy St Valentine's Day
For my one and only true love...
Cherrypie and JMB/Devonshire Dumpling/Noclue
and Gingersnaps
...and any other girls who know me.
Photo: Hat-Tip to Cherrypie
For my one and only true love...
Cherrypie and JMB/Devonshire Dumpling/Noclue
and Gingersnaps
...and any other girls who know me.
Photo: Hat-Tip to Cherrypie
Train robber Biggs hospitalised
Train robber Biggs hospitalised
Great Train robber Ronnie Biggs has been taken to hospital after falling ill in prison.
Biggs was moved to the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital in Norwich from nearby Norwich Prison, his son Michael Biggs has confirmed to the BBC.
I think it is perhaps time that the Ministry of Justice showed some compassion and order Ronnie Biggs release so that he can die in peace outside of prison.
Great Train robber Ronnie Biggs has been taken to hospital after falling ill in prison.
Biggs was moved to the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital in Norwich from nearby Norwich Prison, his son Michael Biggs has confirmed to the BBC.
I think it is perhaps time that the Ministry of Justice showed some compassion and order Ronnie Biggs release so that he can die in peace outside of prison.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Watching and waiting for the sea eagle
Watching and waiting for the sea eagle
There is real excitement on the Solway coast of Cumbria.
A white-tailed sea eagle has been spotted feeding on the beach there for the first time in more than 200 years.
I know I have already posted on this story, but this repeat performance is just for Cherrypie, this time the photos are of the actual white-tailed sea eagle;)
There is real excitement on the Solway coast of Cumbria.
A white-tailed sea eagle has been spotted feeding on the beach there for the first time in more than 200 years.
I know I have already posted on this story, but this repeat performance is just for Cherrypie, this time the photos are of the actual white-tailed sea eagle;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)