Freak weather conditions
As the weather forecast predicted it would be warmer today. I did not bother to switch on the central heating.
Vacuumed the lounge carpet again today. No matter how often I do it, I sit down and see little bits and dog hairs which have been missed!
I got a couple of new halogen bulbs for the security lights and have fitted them.
I am beginning to live again rather than just existing.
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
Thursday, February 23, 2012
The British government should not participate in legal torture
The British government should not participate in legal torture
Andrew Lilico
I write that headline. I look at it. It doesn't seem like it should be controversial. Indeed, if I have written such a headline twenty-five years ago, readers would probably have expected the body of the article to contain some terrible revelation about police malpractice in Northern Ireland. And yet, as a strange and disturbing reflection of our age, I am not not merely in a minority amongst the general population (who, I presume, would always have been happy enough to see some rapists, child murderers, terrorists and others tortured) but, oddly, even amongst the chattering classes. Indeed, in such a minority that my view would be regarded as not merely wrong and extreme, but bordering on the unacceptable.
I do not believe that the British government should torture people itself or participate in their torture by others. So, that means torture should not be legal, evidence obtained under torture should not be admissible as evidence in a trial, we should not deport people to countries where they themselves will be tortured, and we should not deport people to countries where others will be tortured into giving evidence against them.
I do not believe this on the basis of Britain having signed up to any convention and as such feeling obliged to play by the rules as a team player now we've signed. I would oppose the British government participating in legal torture even were we signed up to no international conventions touching on torture at all. Neither do I believe this on the basis that I contend there is any "right" not to be tortured - I don't believe in human rights at all.
Indeed, I firmly believe that we are only having our current debate about when it's okay to torture people precisely because people have signed up to the authoritarian and illiberal doctrine termed "human rights". Under any rights-based system the government contends that it creates rights - e.g. the right not to be tortured. Well, if the government creates such rights then it can take those rights away or modify them. So, since the British government asserted itself the creator of the right not to be tortured, with the Human Rights Act 1998, it now regards modifying the right not to be tortured as within its power.
I, on the other hand, am not a supporter of the sort of state wherein governments create rights. Instead, I prefer states in which we begin with freedom over ourselves - we are free by nature, and thus free logically prior to the emergence of any state to grant us rights - and the state curtails our freedoms in various useful ways. I do not have an abstract right not to be tortured; I am simply entitled to go about my businesses without interference and under the state's guarantee of my person and property unless and until I break some law that entitles the state to interfere with me, and then we specify the nature and limits on the state's interference with me - whether it is allowed to imprison me, or subject me to rehabilitation / brain-washing, or beat me with a whip, or hang me. I am free from being tortured by the state not because I have any right not to be tortured but simply because no law has been enacted entitling the state to torture me - and under classical-modern interpretations of Common Law no such law could be enacted; the queen's judges would not deploy or accept it and it wouldn't be a "law".
The government should not torture or participate in torture. If a foreign government requests we send back someone it is hunting, and we believe it intends to torture that person, then if we send the person back our government is participating in torture. It is complicit; it is involved; it cannot claim to be absolved of responsibility; it was a cog in the mechanism that led to that torture. Similarly, if we believe that government might not torture the person it hunts, but would instead torture someone else (say, some witness) to obtain evidence against the person it is hunting, then again if our government sends the hunted person back it is participating in the torture of the witness.
My objection to torture is not contingent upon whether I like, admire, hate or despise the person tortured. Few people, if any, would be content to torture people they liked and admired. Almost by definition, someone that we might be tempted to torture will be someone we believe unpleasant and dangerous. So when one comes to any specific case, it will always be tempting to abandon the general principle - claiming that the specific circumstances mean "this time it's different"; that it would be helpful, perhaps, to pass some special law to allow the participation in torture in just this case. But we either accept that we should not torture even unpleasant and dangerous people or we deny that torture is illegitimate.
Which is it?
Comment: I agree with most of this article, save for "I don't believe in human rights at all" and "authoritarian and illiberal doctrine termed "human rights"". I do believe in human rights and do not accept that the ECHR is authoritarian nor based upon an illiberal doctrine. Perhaps the headline should read The British government should not participate in illegal torture?
Andrew Lilico
I write that headline. I look at it. It doesn't seem like it should be controversial. Indeed, if I have written such a headline twenty-five years ago, readers would probably have expected the body of the article to contain some terrible revelation about police malpractice in Northern Ireland. And yet, as a strange and disturbing reflection of our age, I am not not merely in a minority amongst the general population (who, I presume, would always have been happy enough to see some rapists, child murderers, terrorists and others tortured) but, oddly, even amongst the chattering classes. Indeed, in such a minority that my view would be regarded as not merely wrong and extreme, but bordering on the unacceptable.
I do not believe that the British government should torture people itself or participate in their torture by others. So, that means torture should not be legal, evidence obtained under torture should not be admissible as evidence in a trial, we should not deport people to countries where they themselves will be tortured, and we should not deport people to countries where others will be tortured into giving evidence against them.
I do not believe this on the basis of Britain having signed up to any convention and as such feeling obliged to play by the rules as a team player now we've signed. I would oppose the British government participating in legal torture even were we signed up to no international conventions touching on torture at all. Neither do I believe this on the basis that I contend there is any "right" not to be tortured - I don't believe in human rights at all.
Indeed, I firmly believe that we are only having our current debate about when it's okay to torture people precisely because people have signed up to the authoritarian and illiberal doctrine termed "human rights". Under any rights-based system the government contends that it creates rights - e.g. the right not to be tortured. Well, if the government creates such rights then it can take those rights away or modify them. So, since the British government asserted itself the creator of the right not to be tortured, with the Human Rights Act 1998, it now regards modifying the right not to be tortured as within its power.
I, on the other hand, am not a supporter of the sort of state wherein governments create rights. Instead, I prefer states in which we begin with freedom over ourselves - we are free by nature, and thus free logically prior to the emergence of any state to grant us rights - and the state curtails our freedoms in various useful ways. I do not have an abstract right not to be tortured; I am simply entitled to go about my businesses without interference and under the state's guarantee of my person and property unless and until I break some law that entitles the state to interfere with me, and then we specify the nature and limits on the state's interference with me - whether it is allowed to imprison me, or subject me to rehabilitation / brain-washing, or beat me with a whip, or hang me. I am free from being tortured by the state not because I have any right not to be tortured but simply because no law has been enacted entitling the state to torture me - and under classical-modern interpretations of Common Law no such law could be enacted; the queen's judges would not deploy or accept it and it wouldn't be a "law".
The government should not torture or participate in torture. If a foreign government requests we send back someone it is hunting, and we believe it intends to torture that person, then if we send the person back our government is participating in torture. It is complicit; it is involved; it cannot claim to be absolved of responsibility; it was a cog in the mechanism that led to that torture. Similarly, if we believe that government might not torture the person it hunts, but would instead torture someone else (say, some witness) to obtain evidence against the person it is hunting, then again if our government sends the hunted person back it is participating in the torture of the witness.
My objection to torture is not contingent upon whether I like, admire, hate or despise the person tortured. Few people, if any, would be content to torture people they liked and admired. Almost by definition, someone that we might be tempted to torture will be someone we believe unpleasant and dangerous. So when one comes to any specific case, it will always be tempting to abandon the general principle - claiming that the specific circumstances mean "this time it's different"; that it would be helpful, perhaps, to pass some special law to allow the participation in torture in just this case. But we either accept that we should not torture even unpleasant and dangerous people or we deny that torture is illegitimate.
Which is it?
Comment: I agree with most of this article, save for "I don't believe in human rights at all" and "authoritarian and illiberal doctrine termed "human rights"". I do believe in human rights and do not accept that the ECHR is authoritarian nor based upon an illiberal doctrine. Perhaps the headline should read The British government should not participate in illegal torture?
Sex offenders 'freed without treatment for behaviour'
Sex offenders 'freed without treatment for behaviour'
The Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales has warned sex offenders are being released without being given access to courses to address their behaviour.
Nick Hardwick's comments follow an inspection of Maidstone prison in Kent.
It is a specialist centre holding about 480 sex offenders.
Last month Mr Hardwick described Shrewsbury prison's approach to the management of sex offenders as "disturbing and lacklustre".
The BBC's home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw says: "Similar issues are highlighted in his report into HMP Maidstone, a specialist centre for sex offenders.
"It says there's an 'unacceptably limited' number of treatment places available, with about 100 sex offenders on a waiting list."
Mr Hardwick says the shortage is a "significant concern" because "too many" sex offenders are freed without their behaviour being "effectively challenged".
Officials say there will be more treatment programmes next year but point out they are not suitable for sex offenders who deny their crimes.
The Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales has warned sex offenders are being released without being given access to courses to address their behaviour.
Nick Hardwick's comments follow an inspection of Maidstone prison in Kent.
It is a specialist centre holding about 480 sex offenders.
Last month Mr Hardwick described Shrewsbury prison's approach to the management of sex offenders as "disturbing and lacklustre".
The BBC's home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw says: "Similar issues are highlighted in his report into HMP Maidstone, a specialist centre for sex offenders.
"It says there's an 'unacceptably limited' number of treatment places available, with about 100 sex offenders on a waiting list."
Mr Hardwick says the shortage is a "significant concern" because "too many" sex offenders are freed without their behaviour being "effectively challenged".
Officials say there will be more treatment programmes next year but point out they are not suitable for sex offenders who deny their crimes.
Binge drinking scandal hits the Houses of Parliament
Binge drinking scandal hits the Houses of Parliament
MP Eric Joyce arrested over assault at House of Commons bar
Eric Joyce, the Labour MP for Falkirk, has been arrested after a fracas in a bar at the House of Commons, it is understood.
Eric Joyce MP arrested: fears over Parliament's drinking culture
The arrest of Labour MP Eric Joyce over an alleged assault in a House of Commons bar follows concerns over the culture of taxpayer-subsidised drinking in Parliament.
David Cameron vows to tackle binge drinking 'scandal'
Comment: It is time that minimum pricing was brought into Parliament to stop MPs and Lords from binge drinking. That is, put an end to the Taxpayers subsidy. Moreover, I don't see why the Palace of Westminister should not be required to have a licence to sell alcohol and spirits. If a club or pub constantly has bad behaviour they can lose their licence. The same should apply for MPs and Lords.
MP Eric Joyce arrested over assault at House of Commons bar
Eric Joyce, the Labour MP for Falkirk, has been arrested after a fracas in a bar at the House of Commons, it is understood.
Eric Joyce MP arrested: fears over Parliament's drinking culture
The arrest of Labour MP Eric Joyce over an alleged assault in a House of Commons bar follows concerns over the culture of taxpayer-subsidised drinking in Parliament.
David Cameron vows to tackle binge drinking 'scandal'
Comment: It is time that minimum pricing was brought into Parliament to stop MPs and Lords from binge drinking. That is, put an end to the Taxpayers subsidy. Moreover, I don't see why the Palace of Westminister should not be required to have a licence to sell alcohol and spirits. If a club or pub constantly has bad behaviour they can lose their licence. The same should apply for MPs and Lords.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
A bit of a Spring clean...
A bit of a Spring clean...
I have been doing a bit of a Spring clean in my lounge. Last night I slept in my own bedroom instead of down in the lounge on a spare single bed. It will be recalled that I fell ill just after Christmas. Today I dismantled the spare bed and took it back upstairs into the study/bedroom. When I moved the cushions on the sofa to vacuum underneath I found the piece of dope I lost just after Christmas! I had put the sofa where the Christmas tree had been in front of the bay window. I swept up the pine needles that had fallen off the Christmas tree and they half filled a bucket! I will sprinkle them on the fire when I next light it, maybe Saturday as it is forecasted to be cold, and enjoy the smell of pine needles.
I have been doing a bit of a Spring clean in my lounge. Last night I slept in my own bedroom instead of down in the lounge on a spare single bed. It will be recalled that I fell ill just after Christmas. Today I dismantled the spare bed and took it back upstairs into the study/bedroom. When I moved the cushions on the sofa to vacuum underneath I found the piece of dope I lost just after Christmas! I had put the sofa where the Christmas tree had been in front of the bay window. I swept up the pine needles that had fallen off the Christmas tree and they half filled a bucket! I will sprinkle them on the fire when I next light it, maybe Saturday as it is forecasted to be cold, and enjoy the smell of pine needles.
Persons with intellectual and psycho-social disabilities must not be deprived of their individual rights
Persons with intellectual and psycho-social disabilities must not be deprived of their individual rights
Persons with intellectual and psycho-social disabilities are today routinely placed under a guardianship regime in several European countries - they are deprived of their “legal capacity”. In the eyes of the law they are seen as non-persons and their decisions have no legal relevance. This policy violates agreed human rights standards.
The bulk of the legal capacity systems in Europe are out-dated and in urgent need of reform. The automatic loss of human rights of those placed under a guardianship regime is a practice which must be changed.
Being recognised as someone who can make decisions is essential for everyone who seeks to take control over his/her life and participate in society on an equal basis with others. Having legal capacity enables us to choose where and with whom we want to live, to vote for the political party we prefer, to have our health care decisions respected, to control our own financial affairs and to have access to cinemas and other leisure activities.
No exception should be made from the assumption that all adults of majority age have legal capacity. In a society respecting human rights also persons with intellectual and psycho-social disabilities must be included.
This requires that support alternatives be developed to enable some individuals to make decisions for themselves and expand their capacities to do so. This obligation on governments is prescribed in the landmark UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities from 2006, now ratified by most European states.
Equal recognition before the law
The Convention’s Article 12 (on the equal recognition before the law) signals a deeper understanding of equality: all persons with disabilities shall enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life and shall be provided with the support they may require in exercising their legal capacity.
This shift from the withdrawal of legal capacity to the right to be supported in exercising the legal capacity reflects a profound attitude change: from charity to a rights-based approach and from paternalism to empowerment. The lack of legal capacity has all too often hampered the struggle of persons with disabilities to reclaim their human rights, as they have had no legal possibility to challenge violations of these rights.
The European Court of Human Rights has sent similar signals. In its recent Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Stanev v. Bulgaria, it highlighted the growing importance which international law, including the UN Convention, now attaches to granting persons with psychosocial disabilities as much legal autonomy as possible.
The case concerned a man who had been put under partial guardianship and in de facto detention in a social care home. The Court found that the deprivation of liberty of the applicant as well as his lack of access to court to challenge the lawfulness of his detention and to seek restoration of his legal capacity had breached the European Convention on Human Rights.
Supported decision-making
The support called for in Article 12 of the UN Convention can take a variety of forms: for instance, support to enable someone who communicates in alternative ways to convey messages to others; assistance in contacts with the authorities; or help to define options for living and other arrangements.
The choices rest with the individual. Third parties – public officials, doctors, social workers, bank employees and others – must in turn take measures to enable the individual to enter into agreements and take decisions with legal consequences.
A network of supporters should be recognised – but not imposed on the individual – and these supporters may provide information and options to help him/her to make decisions. The Convention states that there should be appropriate and effective safeguards in order to prevent abuse. The preferences of the person concerned should be respected and care should be taken to ensure that there is no conflict of interest involved or undue influence being exercised.
The sad truth is that most Europeans with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities who would like to have such support are currently asked to give up their legal capacity and accept that someone else takes decisions on their behalf.
A radical rethink is needed
The rights-based approach requires a respectful attitude from the community and a capability to listen which is not present everywhere. Moreover, there will be situations of communication difficulties despite genuine efforts to support the individual. In such cases it may be necessary to resort to ‘best interests’ reasoning – seeking to find out what the person would have wanted, if communication had worked.
However, even such situations are no argument for depriving these individuals of their legal capacity. Instead, different types of support should be developed, in dialogue with the users, so that a better understanding of their choices and preferences can emerge.
What is called for is no less than a radical overhaul of present policies. All European governments should review their existing legislation on legal capacity. They should abolish mechanisms for full incapacitation and plenary guardianship.
They should stop depriving persons with disabilities of their voting rights and placing them in de facto detention in institutions against their will.
They should also recognise that far more efforts are needed to develop supported decision-making alternatives for those who want assistance in making choices or communicating them to others.
Thomas Hammarberg
WHO GETS TO DECIDE?
Right to legal capacity for persons
with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities
Persons with intellectual and psycho-social disabilities are today routinely placed under a guardianship regime in several European countries - they are deprived of their “legal capacity”. In the eyes of the law they are seen as non-persons and their decisions have no legal relevance. This policy violates agreed human rights standards.
The bulk of the legal capacity systems in Europe are out-dated and in urgent need of reform. The automatic loss of human rights of those placed under a guardianship regime is a practice which must be changed.
Being recognised as someone who can make decisions is essential for everyone who seeks to take control over his/her life and participate in society on an equal basis with others. Having legal capacity enables us to choose where and with whom we want to live, to vote for the political party we prefer, to have our health care decisions respected, to control our own financial affairs and to have access to cinemas and other leisure activities.
No exception should be made from the assumption that all adults of majority age have legal capacity. In a society respecting human rights also persons with intellectual and psycho-social disabilities must be included.
This requires that support alternatives be developed to enable some individuals to make decisions for themselves and expand their capacities to do so. This obligation on governments is prescribed in the landmark UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities from 2006, now ratified by most European states.
Equal recognition before the law
The Convention’s Article 12 (on the equal recognition before the law) signals a deeper understanding of equality: all persons with disabilities shall enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life and shall be provided with the support they may require in exercising their legal capacity.
This shift from the withdrawal of legal capacity to the right to be supported in exercising the legal capacity reflects a profound attitude change: from charity to a rights-based approach and from paternalism to empowerment. The lack of legal capacity has all too often hampered the struggle of persons with disabilities to reclaim their human rights, as they have had no legal possibility to challenge violations of these rights.
The European Court of Human Rights has sent similar signals. In its recent Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Stanev v. Bulgaria, it highlighted the growing importance which international law, including the UN Convention, now attaches to granting persons with psychosocial disabilities as much legal autonomy as possible.
The case concerned a man who had been put under partial guardianship and in de facto detention in a social care home. The Court found that the deprivation of liberty of the applicant as well as his lack of access to court to challenge the lawfulness of his detention and to seek restoration of his legal capacity had breached the European Convention on Human Rights.
Supported decision-making
The support called for in Article 12 of the UN Convention can take a variety of forms: for instance, support to enable someone who communicates in alternative ways to convey messages to others; assistance in contacts with the authorities; or help to define options for living and other arrangements.
The choices rest with the individual. Third parties – public officials, doctors, social workers, bank employees and others – must in turn take measures to enable the individual to enter into agreements and take decisions with legal consequences.
A network of supporters should be recognised – but not imposed on the individual – and these supporters may provide information and options to help him/her to make decisions. The Convention states that there should be appropriate and effective safeguards in order to prevent abuse. The preferences of the person concerned should be respected and care should be taken to ensure that there is no conflict of interest involved or undue influence being exercised.
The sad truth is that most Europeans with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities who would like to have such support are currently asked to give up their legal capacity and accept that someone else takes decisions on their behalf.
A radical rethink is needed
The rights-based approach requires a respectful attitude from the community and a capability to listen which is not present everywhere. Moreover, there will be situations of communication difficulties despite genuine efforts to support the individual. In such cases it may be necessary to resort to ‘best interests’ reasoning – seeking to find out what the person would have wanted, if communication had worked.
However, even such situations are no argument for depriving these individuals of their legal capacity. Instead, different types of support should be developed, in dialogue with the users, so that a better understanding of their choices and preferences can emerge.
What is called for is no less than a radical overhaul of present policies. All European governments should review their existing legislation on legal capacity. They should abolish mechanisms for full incapacitation and plenary guardianship.
They should stop depriving persons with disabilities of their voting rights and placing them in de facto detention in institutions against their will.
They should also recognise that far more efforts are needed to develop supported decision-making alternatives for those who want assistance in making choices or communicating them to others.
Thomas Hammarberg
WHO GETS TO DECIDE?
Right to legal capacity for persons
with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities
Cold Weather Payment
Cold Weather Payment
I received £200 at the end of November. It was cut from £250.
Last week I received a letter from The Pension Service informing me that because the average temperature is freezing or below freezing £25 will be paid into my account.
Today I received another letter stating the same.
Its a warm feeling to claw back the £50 deducted because of the cutbacks.
I received £200 at the end of November. It was cut from £250.
Last week I received a letter from The Pension Service informing me that because the average temperature is freezing or below freezing £25 will be paid into my account.
Today I received another letter stating the same.
Its a warm feeling to claw back the £50 deducted because of the cutbacks.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Money laundering
Money laundering
Whilst not in the same league as Lord Ashcroft of Belize, when I had a bath tonight and emptied my dirty jeans pockets to transfer to a clean pair of jeans I found a £10 note in the back pocket of my clean jeans. Given I am almost always skint, I cannot believe I forgot I had a tenner! When I got back downstairs I searched for the tenner only to find it in the back pocket of the jeans I intended to put in the washing machine! Duh!
Whilst not in the same league as Lord Ashcroft of Belize, when I had a bath tonight and emptied my dirty jeans pockets to transfer to a clean pair of jeans I found a £10 note in the back pocket of my clean jeans. Given I am almost always skint, I cannot believe I forgot I had a tenner! When I got back downstairs I searched for the tenner only to find it in the back pocket of the jeans I intended to put in the washing machine! Duh!
Pancake Day - Shrove Tuesday
Pancake Day - Shrove Tuesday
Pancake Day: size really does matter as scientists find formula for perfect pancake flip
The lemon and sugar are standing by, the batter is in the pan. But it is the pancake flip which causes many cooks to break out into a cold sweat on Shrove Tuesday.
UPDATE:
I bought some pancake mix and added a teaspoon of cooking oil for each 8 inch pancake, plus one large egg and 17 ounces of water and then whisked it into a batter. I had 5 myself, a friend had two and I gave two to neighbours and then gave them some of the batter to make their own.
Pancake Day: size really does matter as scientists find formula for perfect pancake flip
The lemon and sugar are standing by, the batter is in the pan. But it is the pancake flip which causes many cooks to break out into a cold sweat on Shrove Tuesday.
UPDATE:
I bought some pancake mix and added a teaspoon of cooking oil for each 8 inch pancake, plus one large egg and 17 ounces of water and then whisked it into a batter. I had 5 myself, a friend had two and I gave two to neighbours and then gave them some of the batter to make their own.
Signs of Spring?
Signs of Spring?
A girl enjoys the warm weather in St James's Park on March 16, 2009 in London, England. Temperatures reached 17 degrees celsius (63F) that day. (Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)
The sun is shining and it is warm outside. Is this a quirk of the British weather or does it signify the arrival of an early Spring?
Just have a look at these stunning Spring and Summer landscapes.
The sun is shining and it is warm outside. Is this a quirk of the British weather or does it signify the arrival of an early Spring?
Just have a look at these stunning Spring and Summer landscapes.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Yunus Rahmatullah case complaint lodged with Scotland Yard
Yunus Rahmatullah case complaint lodged with Scotland Yard
Move comes after bid to free man who has been 'rendered' by US forces for eight years was rejected by UK appeal court
Yunus Rahmatullah was rendered to Bagram prison by US forces after he was captured by SAS soldiers in Baghdad in 2004. Photograph: Reprieve/PA
Lawyers attempting to secure the release of a man who has been detained by US forces for eight years after being captured by British troops in Iraq have lodged a complaint about the case with Scotland Yard.
The move comes after a bid to use an ancient piece of English common law to secure the freedom of Yunus Rahmatullah was rejected by the appeal court in London.
Rahmatullah was "rendered" to Bagram prison in Afghanistan after SAS soldiers detained him in Baghdad in February 2004 then handed him over to the US military.
In December three appeal judges – Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger, Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Lord Justice Sullivan – directed the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, and said Rahmatullah should be freed.
But on Monday appeal judges cancelled the release order after being told that American authorities were not going to "play ball" and British ministers had "reached the end of the road".
Lawyers representing Foreign Office and defence ministers said American authorities were not prepared to transfer Rahmatullah and did not accept that they had any obligation under international law.
In a letter to the Metropolitan police commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, Rahmatullah's lawyers at the legal charity Reprieve said that he and another man were severely abused in Iraq before being taken out of the country, in breach of the Geneva Conventions. "The evidence that certain war crimes were committed also seems beyond dispute," they wrote.
Move comes after bid to free man who has been 'rendered' by US forces for eight years was rejected by UK appeal court
Lawyers attempting to secure the release of a man who has been detained by US forces for eight years after being captured by British troops in Iraq have lodged a complaint about the case with Scotland Yard.
The move comes after a bid to use an ancient piece of English common law to secure the freedom of Yunus Rahmatullah was rejected by the appeal court in London.
Rahmatullah was "rendered" to Bagram prison in Afghanistan after SAS soldiers detained him in Baghdad in February 2004 then handed him over to the US military.
In December three appeal judges – Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger, Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Lord Justice Sullivan – directed the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, and said Rahmatullah should be freed.
But on Monday appeal judges cancelled the release order after being told that American authorities were not going to "play ball" and British ministers had "reached the end of the road".
Lawyers representing Foreign Office and defence ministers said American authorities were not prepared to transfer Rahmatullah and did not accept that they had any obligation under international law.
In a letter to the Metropolitan police commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, Rahmatullah's lawyers at the legal charity Reprieve said that he and another man were severely abused in Iraq before being taken out of the country, in breach of the Geneva Conventions. "The evidence that certain war crimes were committed also seems beyond dispute," they wrote.
German MPs back human rights activist as candidate to be next president
German MPs back human rights activist as candidate to be next president
Both left and right rally behind Joachim Gauck, 72, who grew up in East Germany and does not belong to any political party
Germany's next president looks set to be former East German human rights activist Joachim Gauck. Photograph: Thomas Peter/Reuters
Germany's government and the two major opposition parties have said they will jointly nominate Joachim Gauck, a human rights activist originally from East Germany, to be the country's next president.
Angela Merkel said her coalition government, and the centre-left opposition had rallied behind Gauck, 72, who was initially proposed by the opposition Social Democrats and Greens.
He is not a member of a political party.
"What moves me the most, is that a man who was still born during the gloomy, dark war, who grew up and lived 50 years in a dictatorship … is now called to become the head of state," Gauck said.
"This is of course a very special day in my life."
Christian Wulff, 52, resigned as president on Friday after two months of allegations about receiving loans on favourable terms and hotel stays from friends when he was state governor of Lower Saxony.
He was Merkel's candidate when elected less than two years ago, triumphing over Gauck in a messy election.
When Wulff resigned, Merkel immediately said she would work with the Social Democrats and Greens to find a consensus candidate to succeed him.
Merkel, who also grew up in East Germany, said her and Gauck's life stories strongly connected them. "We have both spent a part of our life in the GDR and our dream of freedom became true in 1989."
The chancellor said that clergymen such as Gauck – a former Lutheran priest – were at the forefront of the protests that eventually brought down the regime.
Claudia Roth, the Greens' leader, said "Gauck will restore the respect for the office, will restore dignity," to the presidency, which had become tainted by Wulff's actions.
While his name widely circulated as the opposition's favourite, it wasn't clear until Sunday whether the governing coalition would rally behind Gauck. At a press conference, Gauck said he was still stunned by the nomination, but "very late tonight, I will also be happy."
Both left and right rally behind Joachim Gauck, 72, who grew up in East Germany and does not belong to any political party
Germany's government and the two major opposition parties have said they will jointly nominate Joachim Gauck, a human rights activist originally from East Germany, to be the country's next president.
Angela Merkel said her coalition government, and the centre-left opposition had rallied behind Gauck, 72, who was initially proposed by the opposition Social Democrats and Greens.
He is not a member of a political party.
"What moves me the most, is that a man who was still born during the gloomy, dark war, who grew up and lived 50 years in a dictatorship … is now called to become the head of state," Gauck said.
"This is of course a very special day in my life."
Christian Wulff, 52, resigned as president on Friday after two months of allegations about receiving loans on favourable terms and hotel stays from friends when he was state governor of Lower Saxony.
He was Merkel's candidate when elected less than two years ago, triumphing over Gauck in a messy election.
When Wulff resigned, Merkel immediately said she would work with the Social Democrats and Greens to find a consensus candidate to succeed him.
Merkel, who also grew up in East Germany, said her and Gauck's life stories strongly connected them. "We have both spent a part of our life in the GDR and our dream of freedom became true in 1989."
The chancellor said that clergymen such as Gauck – a former Lutheran priest – were at the forefront of the protests that eventually brought down the regime.
Claudia Roth, the Greens' leader, said "Gauck will restore the respect for the office, will restore dignity," to the presidency, which had become tainted by Wulff's actions.
While his name widely circulated as the opposition's favourite, it wasn't clear until Sunday whether the governing coalition would rally behind Gauck. At a press conference, Gauck said he was still stunned by the nomination, but "very late tonight, I will also be happy."
Secret justice: private consultations
Secret justice: private consultations
We should be proud of the ancient presumption that the evidence on which English courtrooms proceed is open
Editorial
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 19 February 2012 22.22 GMT
Plans to cast justice into the dark continue apace, with the end of a government consultation. New provisions to keep evidence secret from those whose fates turn upon it could be confirmed in the second Queen's speech of a coalition that once claimed to be animated by liberty.
Every liberal, and for that matter every patriotic Tory, should be proud of the ancient presumption that the evidence on which an English courtroom proceeds is evidence that's out in the open. The adversarial tradition allows both sides to test the strength of the other's case, by interrogating it to the very foundations. If this sounds highfalutin, take heed of the practical experiences of those few lawyers who have worked in the one British courtroom that departs from this principle, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. Dinah Rose QC has spoken of being asked to shoot blindly at a concealed target. Ian Macdonald QC found the process so corrupting that he resigned as a special advocate as a point of conscience.
The issue with Siac is not the judge's ruling on the admissibility of, or right to report on, some particular piece of evidence, as applies more generally. Rather, it is a minister deciding to withhold elements – and sometimes the whole thrust – of the case against an individual from that individual themselves. Lawyers are barred from discussing the evidence with the one person it directly concerns. If the plans go through, this power will no longer be wielded only in a tiny number of immigration cases, but could instead be invoked in any civil case where ministers deem it is required by "national security", or – even worse – by a fuzzy notion of the "public interest". The only comeback would be judicial review, where the punishing test of "unreasonableness" is that a minister be found to have acted so wildly that no rational person could have pursued his or her claimed aims that way.
The security state's plea for a fair hearing is not being helped by the Cabinet Office's failure thus far to publish all the evidence that it took, or even from whom the evidence came. Although it now claims to be seeking permission to name the companies, police authorities and indeed parliamentary committees who privately lobbied in this public consultation, for the moment their very identities remain under wraps. The bad old days, where MI5's power was protected by an official refusal to acknowledge its existence, come to mind. That absurdity was scotched a generation ago, with the proper recognition that necessarily secret work could be performed by an acknowledged public body. Sadly, it seems that the security state retains its lazy preference for making its arguments in private correspondence – and in private courtrooms.
3
We should be proud of the ancient presumption that the evidence on which English courtrooms proceed is open
Editorial
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 19 February 2012 22.22 GMT
Plans to cast justice into the dark continue apace, with the end of a government consultation. New provisions to keep evidence secret from those whose fates turn upon it could be confirmed in the second Queen's speech of a coalition that once claimed to be animated by liberty.
Every liberal, and for that matter every patriotic Tory, should be proud of the ancient presumption that the evidence on which an English courtroom proceeds is evidence that's out in the open. The adversarial tradition allows both sides to test the strength of the other's case, by interrogating it to the very foundations. If this sounds highfalutin, take heed of the practical experiences of those few lawyers who have worked in the one British courtroom that departs from this principle, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. Dinah Rose QC has spoken of being asked to shoot blindly at a concealed target. Ian Macdonald QC found the process so corrupting that he resigned as a special advocate as a point of conscience.
The issue with Siac is not the judge's ruling on the admissibility of, or right to report on, some particular piece of evidence, as applies more generally. Rather, it is a minister deciding to withhold elements – and sometimes the whole thrust – of the case against an individual from that individual themselves. Lawyers are barred from discussing the evidence with the one person it directly concerns. If the plans go through, this power will no longer be wielded only in a tiny number of immigration cases, but could instead be invoked in any civil case where ministers deem it is required by "national security", or – even worse – by a fuzzy notion of the "public interest". The only comeback would be judicial review, where the punishing test of "unreasonableness" is that a minister be found to have acted so wildly that no rational person could have pursued his or her claimed aims that way.
The security state's plea for a fair hearing is not being helped by the Cabinet Office's failure thus far to publish all the evidence that it took, or even from whom the evidence came. Although it now claims to be seeking permission to name the companies, police authorities and indeed parliamentary committees who privately lobbied in this public consultation, for the moment their very identities remain under wraps. The bad old days, where MI5's power was protected by an official refusal to acknowledge its existence, come to mind. That absurdity was scotched a generation ago, with the proper recognition that necessarily secret work could be performed by an acknowledged public body. Sadly, it seems that the security state retains its lazy preference for making its arguments in private correspondence – and in private courtrooms.
3
Voting rights for felons draws barbs
South Dakota
Voting rights for felons draws barbs
The state House of Representatives wants to bar people convicted of a felony who are not on probation or parole from voting until their time is served.
Inmates convicted of a felony and are incarcerated are not now allowed to vote and are removed from voter registration records; however, those on probation or parole, even if convicted of a felony, may vote.
House Bill 1247 is to be heard Wednesday in the Senate Local Government Committee.
Rep. Gene Abdallah, who helped introduce the bill, calls it “an attempt to level the playing field” between those who are convicted of a felony and are sentenced to serve time and those who are convicted of a felony but only receive probation or go on parole.
“If you’re convicted of a felony and sentenced to the penitentary, you lose your right to vote,” he said. “Presently, parolees and probationers can vote. All this bill says, is until you finish your sentence, i.e. parole or probation, you cannot vote just like in those in the institutions.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota calls the proposal “voter suppression.”
“This bill would move South Dakota back decades by denying an entire group of eligible voters the right to vote,” said Robert Doody, executive director of the ACLU of South Dakota. “The right to vote is one of the most fundamental rights we all have as Americans, and any attempt to take away that right is suspect.”
Doody said the legislation is part of an ongoing nationwide voter “purge” ahead of a major federal election.
“This is part of Secretary of State Jason Gant’s ideas and theories that those who can speak and can vote need to be reduced,” he said. “This is really motivated by Secretary Jason Gant participating in a nationwide voter supression movement to supress especially racial minorities from voting. We know that felon disinfranchisement has a history of specifically supressing racial minority votes, and in our case, that would be American Indians.”
Native Americans would be affected to a greater degree because of disproportionately high numbers behind bars, the ACLU argues.
Some lawmakers questioned whether or not county auditors receive information on who is eligible to vote in a timely manner. Others asked about costs to the state.
Abdallah, who said he introduced the bill on behalf of Gant, said he doesn’t think there would be any additional cost.
Voter eligibilty lists now are updated daily, Gant said. The goal is to have same-day information regarding who is and is not eligible to vote, he said. Only county auditors can add or delete anyone from voter registration rolls.
Gant said the legislation was brought in response to questions and concerns from county auditors obout voter eligibility, in addition to a lawsuit filed a few years ago by ACLU against a former secretary of state, which alleged the state illegally removed voters from the registration list because of felony convictions that did not disqualify them to vote.
“We have this inequity here, where, depending on your judge, or other circumstances, could determine whether or not you keep or lose your right to vote,” Gant said. “With this legislation, it makes it very clear, that if you’re convicted of a felony, you lose your right to vote until you have completed your sentence.”
If the legislation becomes law, it would only impact those who are convicted of a felony on or after July 1 of this year, Gant said. Those who lose the right to vote must re-register once they are eligible again.
While the bill passed the House with a 51-18 vote, some lawmakers took issue with the timing of the legislation and questioned the reason behind it.
“It is interesting that exactly 10 years ago this Legislature debated this very issue and they decided to pass the existing law which has worked just fine for the last 10 years. I don’t know what the problem is that we want to change it at this time,” Rep. Bernie Hunhoff said during the hearing in the House. “I don’t know why we would want to restrict access to voting to anyone. I don’t suggest this is politically motived at all, but why risk another lawsuit at this time? ”
Hunhoff said prisoners incarcerated tend to feel isolated from society, and often wonder how they will get their feet back under them .
“Yeah, they did wrong, and some rights need to be removed, and they are removed when they are in prison, but this is one small right that you can give back to them to help them feel normal once they’re released from prison,” he said.
Voting rights for felons draws barbs
The state House of Representatives wants to bar people convicted of a felony who are not on probation or parole from voting until their time is served.
Inmates convicted of a felony and are incarcerated are not now allowed to vote and are removed from voter registration records; however, those on probation or parole, even if convicted of a felony, may vote.
House Bill 1247 is to be heard Wednesday in the Senate Local Government Committee.
Rep. Gene Abdallah, who helped introduce the bill, calls it “an attempt to level the playing field” between those who are convicted of a felony and are sentenced to serve time and those who are convicted of a felony but only receive probation or go on parole.
“If you’re convicted of a felony and sentenced to the penitentary, you lose your right to vote,” he said. “Presently, parolees and probationers can vote. All this bill says, is until you finish your sentence, i.e. parole or probation, you cannot vote just like in those in the institutions.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota calls the proposal “voter suppression.”
“This bill would move South Dakota back decades by denying an entire group of eligible voters the right to vote,” said Robert Doody, executive director of the ACLU of South Dakota. “The right to vote is one of the most fundamental rights we all have as Americans, and any attempt to take away that right is suspect.”
Doody said the legislation is part of an ongoing nationwide voter “purge” ahead of a major federal election.
“This is part of Secretary of State Jason Gant’s ideas and theories that those who can speak and can vote need to be reduced,” he said. “This is really motivated by Secretary Jason Gant participating in a nationwide voter supression movement to supress especially racial minorities from voting. We know that felon disinfranchisement has a history of specifically supressing racial minority votes, and in our case, that would be American Indians.”
Native Americans would be affected to a greater degree because of disproportionately high numbers behind bars, the ACLU argues.
Some lawmakers questioned whether or not county auditors receive information on who is eligible to vote in a timely manner. Others asked about costs to the state.
Abdallah, who said he introduced the bill on behalf of Gant, said he doesn’t think there would be any additional cost.
Voter eligibilty lists now are updated daily, Gant said. The goal is to have same-day information regarding who is and is not eligible to vote, he said. Only county auditors can add or delete anyone from voter registration rolls.
Gant said the legislation was brought in response to questions and concerns from county auditors obout voter eligibility, in addition to a lawsuit filed a few years ago by ACLU against a former secretary of state, which alleged the state illegally removed voters from the registration list because of felony convictions that did not disqualify them to vote.
“We have this inequity here, where, depending on your judge, or other circumstances, could determine whether or not you keep or lose your right to vote,” Gant said. “With this legislation, it makes it very clear, that if you’re convicted of a felony, you lose your right to vote until you have completed your sentence.”
If the legislation becomes law, it would only impact those who are convicted of a felony on or after July 1 of this year, Gant said. Those who lose the right to vote must re-register once they are eligible again.
While the bill passed the House with a 51-18 vote, some lawmakers took issue with the timing of the legislation and questioned the reason behind it.
“It is interesting that exactly 10 years ago this Legislature debated this very issue and they decided to pass the existing law which has worked just fine for the last 10 years. I don’t know what the problem is that we want to change it at this time,” Rep. Bernie Hunhoff said during the hearing in the House. “I don’t know why we would want to restrict access to voting to anyone. I don’t suggest this is politically motived at all, but why risk another lawsuit at this time? ”
Hunhoff said prisoners incarcerated tend to feel isolated from society, and often wonder how they will get their feet back under them .
“Yeah, they did wrong, and some rights need to be removed, and they are removed when they are in prison, but this is one small right that you can give back to them to help them feel normal once they’re released from prison,” he said.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Loads of lolly just for a lolly!
Loads of lolly just for a lolly!
This afternoon at my local shop I mused that the drum containing Chupa Chups lollies indicated they are priced at 25p each. 5/- for a kids lolly! After a few double whiskys and colas, and joints, I wondered what the wholesale price was and what kind of markup the shop was charging.
These are Original Chupa Chups for the UK market supplied in a bulk box of 1200 lollies, not the fake imports sold by other companies! (works out at just 9p per lolly).
So, that's a 16p markup on a kiddies lolly! That's daylight robbery! In these economic times, perhaps we should be thinking of going back to 1960s prices?
This afternoon at my local shop I mused that the drum containing Chupa Chups lollies indicated they are priced at 25p each. 5/- for a kids lolly! After a few double whiskys and colas, and joints, I wondered what the wholesale price was and what kind of markup the shop was charging.
These are Original Chupa Chups for the UK market supplied in a bulk box of 1200 lollies, not the fake imports sold by other companies! (works out at just 9p per lolly).
So, that's a 16p markup on a kiddies lolly! That's daylight robbery! In these economic times, perhaps we should be thinking of going back to 1960s prices?
London's homeless could be forced to move as far as Hull
London's homeless could be forced to move as far as Hull
Housing shortage could create exodus from capital as councils search for cheaper rents, charities warn
London councils are predicted to follow Croydon's lead and look for private rented accommodation in Hull. Photograph: Alamy
A shortage of private accommodation in London could mean homeless people are moved as far away as Hull, where rents are cheaper, housing charities are warning. They fear there will be an exodus from the capital of people at the bottom of the housing ladder as the coalition's Localism Act, which comes into force this spring, empowers local authorities to place homeless people in private rented accommodation.
Comment:
Eventually they have got around to my way of thinking. I recall the Daily Mail criticising a council for housing a family of 5 in a million pound house in London. I thought it was madness at the time. There is a 5 bedroom house opposite mine which has been empty for 5 years!
Housing shortage could create exodus from capital as councils search for cheaper rents, charities warn
A shortage of private accommodation in London could mean homeless people are moved as far away as Hull, where rents are cheaper, housing charities are warning. They fear there will be an exodus from the capital of people at the bottom of the housing ladder as the coalition's Localism Act, which comes into force this spring, empowers local authorities to place homeless people in private rented accommodation.
Comment:
Eventually they have got around to my way of thinking. I recall the Daily Mail criticising a council for housing a family of 5 in a million pound house in London. I thought it was madness at the time. There is a 5 bedroom house opposite mine which has been empty for 5 years!
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Abu Qatada – a test of our civil liberties
Abu Qatada – a test of our civil liberties
Letters, The Guardian
The Council of Europe commissioner for human rights, Thomas Hammarberg, has stated Abu Qatada could have been tried in Britain, if there was sufficient evidence to do so (Report, 17 February). In the parliamentary exchanges on 7 February, I asked the home secretary why Qatada had not been charged with incitement to murder, in view of the alleged content of the notorious sermons he had preached. This religious fanatic and racist should never, of course, have been allowed into Britain in the first place, and the security authorities certainly have questions to answer over this. Mr Hammarberg is also right in his criticism over what occurred in the Commons when this matter was being discussed. It was not a pretty sight to see virtually every Tory MP who spoke urging that the decision of the European court of human rights should simply be ignored, and Abu Qatada put on the next plane to Jordan.
If there were those who were somehow persuaded that the Conservative party, when in opposition, were actually in favour of strengthening civil liberties, presumably they will no longer be under such illusions.
David Winnick MP
Lab, Walsall North
• In the plainest terms, your editorial (14 February) makes the unarguable case for according to this most reprehensible man the proper standards which adherence to the rule of law requires. What a contrast to the shrill, unthinking reactions of much of the rest of the UK press and many of its MPs. I am proud, as a British citizen, that there is still a voice of reason in the midst of so much prejudice and nonsense.
Robert Nelson
St Kilda, Victoria, Australia
Letters, The Guardian
The Council of Europe commissioner for human rights, Thomas Hammarberg, has stated Abu Qatada could have been tried in Britain, if there was sufficient evidence to do so (Report, 17 February). In the parliamentary exchanges on 7 February, I asked the home secretary why Qatada had not been charged with incitement to murder, in view of the alleged content of the notorious sermons he had preached. This religious fanatic and racist should never, of course, have been allowed into Britain in the first place, and the security authorities certainly have questions to answer over this. Mr Hammarberg is also right in his criticism over what occurred in the Commons when this matter was being discussed. It was not a pretty sight to see virtually every Tory MP who spoke urging that the decision of the European court of human rights should simply be ignored, and Abu Qatada put on the next plane to Jordan.
If there were those who were somehow persuaded that the Conservative party, when in opposition, were actually in favour of strengthening civil liberties, presumably they will no longer be under such illusions.
David Winnick MP
Lab, Walsall North
• In the plainest terms, your editorial (14 February) makes the unarguable case for according to this most reprehensible man the proper standards which adherence to the rule of law requires. What a contrast to the shrill, unthinking reactions of much of the rest of the UK press and many of its MPs. I am proud, as a British citizen, that there is still a voice of reason in the midst of so much prejudice and nonsense.
Robert Nelson
St Kilda, Victoria, Australia
£2m paid out over child asylum seekers illegally detained as adults
£2m paid out over child asylum seekers illegally detained as adults
Legal case involved 40 youngsters who were locked up in adult units under Home Office policy deemed to be unlawful
One of the young recipients of compensation after being illegally held in adult immigration detention centres. Photograph: David Levene for the Guardian
The Home Office has paid compensation of more than £1m, plus £1m costs, in a case involving 40 child asylum seekers who were wrongly detained as adults, the Guardian can reveal.
It is thought to be the first case of its kind and the largest immigration detention payout for a single case.
Government officials accepted that the policy was unlawful and changed it as a result of this case. However, data passed to the Guardian shows that children are still being detained.
The case that resulted in the £2m payout involved girls and boys, including 25 aged 14 to 16, from countries including Afghanistan, Iran, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Eritrea, Uganda, Somalia and China.
The youngest was a 14-year-old girl from Sri Lanka. Some were survivors of torture in their home countries and some of the girls were survivors of rape and other forms of sexual violence.
Some of the children were locked up for more than a month. and o. OOne boy was moved around the country and held in seven different adult centres including Dover, Campsfield and Harmondsworth during his 74-day detention. "I cried myself to sleep every night," he said. "Nobody explained what was going on and I never knew what was going to happen to me when I woke up the next morning."
A 16-year-old Eritrean girl who was detained said: "I couldn't believe it. I had fled Eritrea to escape prison and thought I'd arrived in a safe country, but now I was being locked up again."
Some of the 40 had been assessed by social services and declared to be children. They showed officials letters from social services stating that they were looked-after children, but the Home Office still detained them.
Mark Scott, of Bhatt Murphy solicitors, who acted for the 40 children, said: "These children arrived in the UK as children, without the support of their families. They had committed no crime, yet were detained by the immigration service in conditions the Home Office admitted were unsuitable for them.
"One of the most shocking aspects of the case was that, despite the widespread concerns about what was going on, the Home Office did nothing to change the situation until they were forced to do so by children bringing litigation.
"The fact that they're still locking up child asylum seekers in these centres is a complete scandal. It's unclear precisely what lessons the Home Office has learned."
When the 40 children were detained as adults there was no shortage of guidance about "age-disputed" children available to the Home Office. The UN Refugee Agency, the Royal College of Paediatricians and the UN committee on the rights of the child all issued guidance on age assessment of asylum seeker children, emphasising the best interests of the children should be prioritised. In March 2002, HM Inspectorate of Prisons expressed concern about Home Office handling of age-disputed asylum seekers.
Many of the children were placed in Oakington detention centre in Cambridgeshire, which was closed in November 2010 following the expansion of other detention centres.
The lawyers argued that Home Office officials with no specialist knowledge or experience of working with children simply looked at the appearance and demeanour of the children before deciding how old they were.
On Friday night, a UK Border Agency spokesman said: "We take the welfare of young people exceptionally seriously. Where there is any doubt over an individual's age, they will not be detained unless an independent local authority age assessment concludes that they are over 18. These checks are carried out by social workers with expert knowledge.
"All of our frontline staff receive specialist training to ensure the welfare of young people is considered at every stage."
He said some children told officials they were over 18 but they would be released from detention pending a full age assessment if credible evidence emerged that they were under 18.
The case, concluded in 2010, was settled out of court and has only come to light now following a freedom of information request by the Guardian. A total of £1,020,000 was paid to the children in compensation for their wrongful detention in adult centres and £1,085,000 was paid in costs in a legal battle that lasted five years. Although government policy changed as a result of the case, the Refugee Council has passed unpublished statistics to the Guardian showing that this unlawful practice is continuing. In 2010, the charity worked with 26 children detained as adults and subsequently accepted as children; in 2011, 22 cases have been confirmed and some have still to be resolved.
Helen Johnson, operations manager at the children's section of the Refugee Council, said there might be other cases it was not aware of.
Concern about the detention of all child asylum seekers – young children detained with their parents and under-18s detained in adult facilities – has grown in recent years. In 2009, 1,065 child asylum seekers were locked up.
Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, announced in December 2010 that the "shameful" practice of detaining children would end, to be replaced by a "fairer and more compassionate approach".
Critics acknowledge that children are now held for shorter periods – a maximum of one week – but are concerned that children continue to be detained despite Clegg's promise.
The most recent figures released by the Home Office show that 17 children were detained in December 2011 in three different centres. Nine of them were under five.
When the 40 children were detained as adults there was no shortage of guidance about "age-disputed" children available to the Home Office. The UN Refugee Agency, the Royal College of Paediatricians and the UN committee on the rights of the child all issued guidance on age assessment of asylum seeker children, emphasising the best interests of the children should be prioritised. In March 2002, HM Inspectorate of Prisons expressed concern about Home Office handling of age-disputed asylum seekers.
Many of the children were placed in Oakington detention centre in Cambridgeshire, which was closed in November 2010 following the expansion of other detention centres.
The children's lawyers said their clients were denied the additional safeguards available to child detainees, subjected to distressing interviews with immigration officers who were not trained to deal with children, and had their welfare put at risk.
Refugee Council data shows that 55% of 275 age-disputed cases sent to Oakington between November 2003 and January 2006 were found to be children when assessed by social services.
Legal case involved 40 youngsters who were locked up in adult units under Home Office policy deemed to be unlawful
The Home Office has paid compensation of more than £1m, plus £1m costs, in a case involving 40 child asylum seekers who were wrongly detained as adults, the Guardian can reveal.
It is thought to be the first case of its kind and the largest immigration detention payout for a single case.
Government officials accepted that the policy was unlawful and changed it as a result of this case. However, data passed to the Guardian shows that children are still being detained.
The case that resulted in the £2m payout involved girls and boys, including 25 aged 14 to 16, from countries including Afghanistan, Iran, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Eritrea, Uganda, Somalia and China.
The youngest was a 14-year-old girl from Sri Lanka. Some were survivors of torture in their home countries and some of the girls were survivors of rape and other forms of sexual violence.
Some of the children were locked up for more than a month. and o. OOne boy was moved around the country and held in seven different adult centres including Dover, Campsfield and Harmondsworth during his 74-day detention. "I cried myself to sleep every night," he said. "Nobody explained what was going on and I never knew what was going to happen to me when I woke up the next morning."
A 16-year-old Eritrean girl who was detained said: "I couldn't believe it. I had fled Eritrea to escape prison and thought I'd arrived in a safe country, but now I was being locked up again."
Some of the 40 had been assessed by social services and declared to be children. They showed officials letters from social services stating that they were looked-after children, but the Home Office still detained them.
Mark Scott, of Bhatt Murphy solicitors, who acted for the 40 children, said: "These children arrived in the UK as children, without the support of their families. They had committed no crime, yet were detained by the immigration service in conditions the Home Office admitted were unsuitable for them.
"One of the most shocking aspects of the case was that, despite the widespread concerns about what was going on, the Home Office did nothing to change the situation until they were forced to do so by children bringing litigation.
"The fact that they're still locking up child asylum seekers in these centres is a complete scandal. It's unclear precisely what lessons the Home Office has learned."
When the 40 children were detained as adults there was no shortage of guidance about "age-disputed" children available to the Home Office. The UN Refugee Agency, the Royal College of Paediatricians and the UN committee on the rights of the child all issued guidance on age assessment of asylum seeker children, emphasising the best interests of the children should be prioritised. In March 2002, HM Inspectorate of Prisons expressed concern about Home Office handling of age-disputed asylum seekers.
Many of the children were placed in Oakington detention centre in Cambridgeshire, which was closed in November 2010 following the expansion of other detention centres.
The lawyers argued that Home Office officials with no specialist knowledge or experience of working with children simply looked at the appearance and demeanour of the children before deciding how old they were.
On Friday night, a UK Border Agency spokesman said: "We take the welfare of young people exceptionally seriously. Where there is any doubt over an individual's age, they will not be detained unless an independent local authority age assessment concludes that they are over 18. These checks are carried out by social workers with expert knowledge.
"All of our frontline staff receive specialist training to ensure the welfare of young people is considered at every stage."
He said some children told officials they were over 18 but they would be released from detention pending a full age assessment if credible evidence emerged that they were under 18.
The case, concluded in 2010, was settled out of court and has only come to light now following a freedom of information request by the Guardian. A total of £1,020,000 was paid to the children in compensation for their wrongful detention in adult centres and £1,085,000 was paid in costs in a legal battle that lasted five years. Although government policy changed as a result of the case, the Refugee Council has passed unpublished statistics to the Guardian showing that this unlawful practice is continuing. In 2010, the charity worked with 26 children detained as adults and subsequently accepted as children; in 2011, 22 cases have been confirmed and some have still to be resolved.
Helen Johnson, operations manager at the children's section of the Refugee Council, said there might be other cases it was not aware of.
Concern about the detention of all child asylum seekers – young children detained with their parents and under-18s detained in adult facilities – has grown in recent years. In 2009, 1,065 child asylum seekers were locked up.
Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, announced in December 2010 that the "shameful" practice of detaining children would end, to be replaced by a "fairer and more compassionate approach".
Critics acknowledge that children are now held for shorter periods – a maximum of one week – but are concerned that children continue to be detained despite Clegg's promise.
The most recent figures released by the Home Office show that 17 children were detained in December 2011 in three different centres. Nine of them were under five.
When the 40 children were detained as adults there was no shortage of guidance about "age-disputed" children available to the Home Office. The UN Refugee Agency, the Royal College of Paediatricians and the UN committee on the rights of the child all issued guidance on age assessment of asylum seeker children, emphasising the best interests of the children should be prioritised. In March 2002, HM Inspectorate of Prisons expressed concern about Home Office handling of age-disputed asylum seekers.
Many of the children were placed in Oakington detention centre in Cambridgeshire, which was closed in November 2010 following the expansion of other detention centres.
The children's lawyers said their clients were denied the additional safeguards available to child detainees, subjected to distressing interviews with immigration officers who were not trained to deal with children, and had their welfare put at risk.
Refugee Council data shows that 55% of 275 age-disputed cases sent to Oakington between November 2003 and January 2006 were found to be children when assessed by social services.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Tory minister's son, 17, wins extension to High Court injunction blocking 'sensitive personal' story
Tory minister's son, 17, wins extension to High Court injunction blocking 'sensitive personal' story
Jonny Spelman
Cabinet minister Caroline Spelman used a gagging order to thwart a newspaper’s ‘political attack’ on her, the High Court heard yesterday.
Caroline Spelman
The millionaire Environment Secretary rushed to the courts after concluding a story regarding her teenage son was about to be published which she saw as politically motivated.
An interim injunction was issued last Saturday evening to hush up the ‘private information’ concerning 17-year-old Jonny Spelman, who is a promising rugby player.
Yesterday, a lawyer acting for Jonny invited the High Court to continue the privacy injunction against the Daily Star Sunday newspaper.
Jacob Dean said: ‘The real purpose of the newspaper’s attempt to publish this information was a political attack on Mrs Spelman, using her teenage son’s private information as a weapon.’
He told Mr Justice Tugendhat his client had a reasonable expectation of privacy and that public interest considerations did not outweigh this.
The Daily Star Sunday newspaper claimed its story was in the public interest and has asked for the injunction to be lifted.
Most of yesterday’s hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice was in private, and the judge is expected to hand down his ruling in a few days.
Senior Conservatives are deeply uneasy about Mrs Spelman’s decision to turn to the courts.
In doing so, she follows in the footsteps of footballers John Terry and Ryan Giggs, and TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson, in using the Human Rights Act to suppress a secret.
There is great public disquiet about the rich and famous using the courts to hush up revelations about their private lives.
The nature of the story about Jonny cannot be disclosed, but the court heard it contains ‘sensitive personal information’. There is no suggestion he has broken the law.
The teenager attends £30,000-a-year Tonbridge School in Kent and has played rugby for England under-16s as a member of Harlequins Academy.
Christina Michalos, counsel for Express Newspapers, told yesterday’s hearing: ‘This case is about freedom of expression in its purest sense - about the watchdog function of the press, and the court must not muzzle that watchdog.’
She rejected the suggestion that the real motivation of the story was political and focused on Jonny’s mother.
‘This is disputed strongly. We say there is an underlying public interest in the story itself,’ she said.
The minister and her husband Mark Spelman, a senior executive at the management consultancy firm Accenture, are named on the court papers as ‘legal friends’ of Jonny, who is a minor and cannot bring the action alone.
When the interim injunction was granted on Saturday, after a three-hour private hearing before Mr Justice Lindblom, the Spelmans applied to remain anonymous in the proceedings.
But the judge rejected this in accordance with the principle of open justice.
On that occasion, the judge said the information about Jonny, which was leaked to the newspaper, attracted a reasonable expectation of privacy and publication would not advance the public interest to a material degree, and was likely to have ‘a very significant harmful effect’ on the minister’s son.
Mr Justice Lindblom, who made his reasons public on Wednesday, said it was a case of a minor facing the prospect of considerable press scrutiny in a tabloid newspaper.
Mrs Spelman, 53, has been Tory MP for Meriden since 1997. In 2009, she was forced to repay nearly £10,000 of Commons allowances ‘inadvertently’ misused to pay her children’s nanny.
She and her husband, who have two other children, have homes in the West Midlands, London and Portugal.
UPDATE: Judge lifts injunction.
Cabinet minister Caroline Spelman used a gagging order to thwart a newspaper’s ‘political attack’ on her, the High Court heard yesterday.
The millionaire Environment Secretary rushed to the courts after concluding a story regarding her teenage son was about to be published which she saw as politically motivated.
An interim injunction was issued last Saturday evening to hush up the ‘private information’ concerning 17-year-old Jonny Spelman, who is a promising rugby player.
Yesterday, a lawyer acting for Jonny invited the High Court to continue the privacy injunction against the Daily Star Sunday newspaper.
Jacob Dean said: ‘The real purpose of the newspaper’s attempt to publish this information was a political attack on Mrs Spelman, using her teenage son’s private information as a weapon.’
He told Mr Justice Tugendhat his client had a reasonable expectation of privacy and that public interest considerations did not outweigh this.
The Daily Star Sunday newspaper claimed its story was in the public interest and has asked for the injunction to be lifted.
Most of yesterday’s hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice was in private, and the judge is expected to hand down his ruling in a few days.
Senior Conservatives are deeply uneasy about Mrs Spelman’s decision to turn to the courts.
In doing so, she follows in the footsteps of footballers John Terry and Ryan Giggs, and TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson, in using the Human Rights Act to suppress a secret.
There is great public disquiet about the rich and famous using the courts to hush up revelations about their private lives.
The nature of the story about Jonny cannot be disclosed, but the court heard it contains ‘sensitive personal information’. There is no suggestion he has broken the law.
The teenager attends £30,000-a-year Tonbridge School in Kent and has played rugby for England under-16s as a member of Harlequins Academy.
Christina Michalos, counsel for Express Newspapers, told yesterday’s hearing: ‘This case is about freedom of expression in its purest sense - about the watchdog function of the press, and the court must not muzzle that watchdog.’
She rejected the suggestion that the real motivation of the story was political and focused on Jonny’s mother.
‘This is disputed strongly. We say there is an underlying public interest in the story itself,’ she said.
The minister and her husband Mark Spelman, a senior executive at the management consultancy firm Accenture, are named on the court papers as ‘legal friends’ of Jonny, who is a minor and cannot bring the action alone.
When the interim injunction was granted on Saturday, after a three-hour private hearing before Mr Justice Lindblom, the Spelmans applied to remain anonymous in the proceedings.
But the judge rejected this in accordance with the principle of open justice.
On that occasion, the judge said the information about Jonny, which was leaked to the newspaper, attracted a reasonable expectation of privacy and publication would not advance the public interest to a material degree, and was likely to have ‘a very significant harmful effect’ on the minister’s son.
Mr Justice Lindblom, who made his reasons public on Wednesday, said it was a case of a minor facing the prospect of considerable press scrutiny in a tabloid newspaper.
Mrs Spelman, 53, has been Tory MP for Meriden since 1997. In 2009, she was forced to repay nearly £10,000 of Commons allowances ‘inadvertently’ misused to pay her children’s nanny.
She and her husband, who have two other children, have homes in the West Midlands, London and Portugal.
UPDATE: Judge lifts injunction.
Huge increase in use of force at privately run young offender institution
Huge increase in use of force at privately run young offender institution
Nine-fold increase in use of force at Ashfield young offender institution only partly accounted for by rise in inmate numbers
Ashfield young offender institution, where there has been a nine-fold rise in the use of force in the past year. Photograph: Graeme Robertson
A huge increase in the use of force to restrain teenage boys at a privately run young offender institution has been sharply criticised by the chief inspector of prisons.
Nick Hardwick says the nine-fold rise in the use of force in the past year at the Serco-run Ashfield young offender institution from an average of 17 times a month to 150 times a month is "extremely high".
The chief inspector has warned the private prison managers at Ashfield, near Bristol, that force must only be used as a last resort where there is an immediate risk to life or limb and not simply to obtain compliance with staff instructions.
But when the prison inspectors went into Ashfield last October they found that more than 40% of the teenage inmates had been restrained and the most frequent reason given in five out of the six preceding months was "failure to obey staff instructions".
Penal reformers said the disclosure has "chilling echoes" of the death of 15-year-old Gareth Myatt, who died while being restrained at a Northamptonshire young offender institution in 2004.
The inspection report on Ashfield published on Friday also says there are serious problems with the late delivery of offenders from court despite a new private escort company, GeoAmey, with inmates delivered from court to Ashfield on one recent occasion between 11pm and 3am.
All new arrivals were also strip-searched even though few items of contraband were ever found. The inspectors say this practice should stop.
Ashfield opened in 1999 on the site of the former Pucklechurch remand centre as the first privately run young offender institution but was repeatedly hit by disturbances. In 2003, the director-general of the prison service described it as the worst prison in Britain and most of the teenagers were withdrawn.
Serco has been running the jail since 2005 and it received a glowing inspection report in 2010 but was only half-full at the time.
The prison inspectors say that Ashfield is now being run at or near its capacity of 380 teenage boys but the staff show a lack of confidence when it comes to dealing with poor behaviour.
The report says the sharp rise in the use of force partly reflected the 50% rise in the population and claims of better recording but most incidents happened when young people were moving to activities.
"In five out of the six preceding months, failure to obey staff instructions was frequently recorded as the issue leading to the use of force. Managers assured us that this analysis was not a true reflection of the main reason for the use of force and that in most instances it had actually been used to prevent escalations of altercations between young people."
But the inspectors make clear that using force to restrain the inmates must never be done simply to ensure they obeyed staff instructions.
Hardwick said: "It is of some concern that some important recommendations in relation to safety have not been met and young people report feeling less safe and less well supported.
"Following the contraction in the number of establishments for children and young people under 18, it is likely that the current situation, operating at or near full capacity, will continue," he said. "The need to ensure safeguarding and behaviour management procedures are operating well will be of greater importance than ever."
Michael Spurr, chief executive officer of the National Offender Management Service, said he accepted that further work needed to be done to create a safer environment.
But Frances Crook of the Howard League for Penal Reform said it had "chilling echoes" of the death of Myatt: "Important safety issues have not been met and there were many incidents of strip-searching children unnecessarily. It was not so long ago that this prison was so unsafe that unprecedented emergency measures were implemented and prisoners were withdrawn as it was likely that the management would lose control of the prison," she said.
"Only three years ago the institution recorded more than 600 attacks on inmates in one year – the highest number of every jail, including adults, in the country. This jail has a history of failing children and the public."
Nine-fold increase in use of force at Ashfield young offender institution only partly accounted for by rise in inmate numbers
A huge increase in the use of force to restrain teenage boys at a privately run young offender institution has been sharply criticised by the chief inspector of prisons.
Nick Hardwick says the nine-fold rise in the use of force in the past year at the Serco-run Ashfield young offender institution from an average of 17 times a month to 150 times a month is "extremely high".
The chief inspector has warned the private prison managers at Ashfield, near Bristol, that force must only be used as a last resort where there is an immediate risk to life or limb and not simply to obtain compliance with staff instructions.
But when the prison inspectors went into Ashfield last October they found that more than 40% of the teenage inmates had been restrained and the most frequent reason given in five out of the six preceding months was "failure to obey staff instructions".
Penal reformers said the disclosure has "chilling echoes" of the death of 15-year-old Gareth Myatt, who died while being restrained at a Northamptonshire young offender institution in 2004.
The inspection report on Ashfield published on Friday also says there are serious problems with the late delivery of offenders from court despite a new private escort company, GeoAmey, with inmates delivered from court to Ashfield on one recent occasion between 11pm and 3am.
All new arrivals were also strip-searched even though few items of contraband were ever found. The inspectors say this practice should stop.
Ashfield opened in 1999 on the site of the former Pucklechurch remand centre as the first privately run young offender institution but was repeatedly hit by disturbances. In 2003, the director-general of the prison service described it as the worst prison in Britain and most of the teenagers were withdrawn.
Serco has been running the jail since 2005 and it received a glowing inspection report in 2010 but was only half-full at the time.
The prison inspectors say that Ashfield is now being run at or near its capacity of 380 teenage boys but the staff show a lack of confidence when it comes to dealing with poor behaviour.
The report says the sharp rise in the use of force partly reflected the 50% rise in the population and claims of better recording but most incidents happened when young people were moving to activities.
"In five out of the six preceding months, failure to obey staff instructions was frequently recorded as the issue leading to the use of force. Managers assured us that this analysis was not a true reflection of the main reason for the use of force and that in most instances it had actually been used to prevent escalations of altercations between young people."
But the inspectors make clear that using force to restrain the inmates must never be done simply to ensure they obeyed staff instructions.
Hardwick said: "It is of some concern that some important recommendations in relation to safety have not been met and young people report feeling less safe and less well supported.
"Following the contraction in the number of establishments for children and young people under 18, it is likely that the current situation, operating at or near full capacity, will continue," he said. "The need to ensure safeguarding and behaviour management procedures are operating well will be of greater importance than ever."
Michael Spurr, chief executive officer of the National Offender Management Service, said he accepted that further work needed to be done to create a safer environment.
But Frances Crook of the Howard League for Penal Reform said it had "chilling echoes" of the death of Myatt: "Important safety issues have not been met and there were many incidents of strip-searching children unnecessarily. It was not so long ago that this prison was so unsafe that unprecedented emergency measures were implemented and prisoners were withdrawn as it was likely that the management would lose control of the prison," she said.
"Only three years ago the institution recorded more than 600 attacks on inmates in one year – the highest number of every jail, including adults, in the country. This jail has a history of failing children and the public."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)