I have recently installed sitemeter, in addition to Google analytics, which is just as well, because the former gives a better indication of location than mere dots on a map. For example, in an earlier post I inadvertently moved Calgary, Alberta, Canada over the border into the USA. For this I apologise. It is one thing to move house, but to move States is traumatic. For those of you who maybe interested, there follows a breakdown of the hits I received yesterday, any updates from abroad:
Australia; Brisbane, Queensland; Canberra, Australian Capital Territory; Launceston, Tasmania;
Austria; Vienna, Wien;
Brazil;
Bulgaria; Khaskovo; Dimitrovgrad;
Canada; Calgary, Alberta;
Chile; Santiago, Region Metropolitana;
China; Beijing; Changzhou; Jiangsu; Central District; Fuzhou; Nanchang, Harbin, Zhengzhou; Shijiazhuang;
Czech Republic; Kralupy Nad Vitavou;
England; Kingston upon Hull; Fairfield, Stockport; Ashton-under-lyne, Tameside; Beckton, Newham; London, Lambeth; Milton Keynes; Crawley, Bromley; Wolverhampton; Manchester;
Germany; Bottrop, Nordrhein-Westfalen;
Hong Kong;
India; Delhi; Mahemdavad; Bangalore, Karnataka;
Ireland; Cork; Antrim;
Lithuania; Vilnius;
Netherlands: Zuidhorn, Groningen;
Norway; Oed;
Prague;
South Africa; Parrow, Western Cape;
Spain; Madrid;
Turkey; Istanbul;
United States; Seattle, Washington; Pleasant Hill, California; San Fransisco, California; Hampton, South Carolina; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Raleigh, North Carolina; Las Vegas, Nevada; Madison, Tennessee;
Wales; Cardiff.
The main hits are from the United Kingdom, United States and China. I must be tripartide.
Thanks for visiting me. Call again, anytime.
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
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Spring is in the air
I am aware of the saying that one swallow does not a Summer make. However, this morning I saw a bird on my garden fence with nesting material in its beak, could this herald the arrival of Spring? What with climate change, and global warming, its been a mild Winter here.
School boy prank? Hardly Alexander the Great is he?
Here's a little gem I found on Bryan Appleyard's blog.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Harry Saves Iraq
Prince Harry is going to Iraq! But, hang on, aren't we supposed to be pulling out? Ah yes, but Blair is looking for a legacy and here it is. We bring the boys home leaving just Harry to patrol the mean streets of Basra. The prince says goodbye to his clubbing boyhood and becomes a man. In an explosive final shootout, he takes on both Sunni and Shia militias in defence of an orphanage. His dying words are, 'Tell mummy I did my best.' Hearing this, the militias fall into each other's arms, vowing never to fight again. 'He was, in a very real sense,' says Blair, 'the people's prince.' As Elton John sings Candle in the Wind, rewritten again, another river of tears floods Westminster Abbey. A dull thumping is heard. It is Gordon Brown banging his head against the door.
# posted by Bryan Appleyard : 8:40 AM
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Harry Saves Iraq
Prince Harry is going to Iraq! But, hang on, aren't we supposed to be pulling out? Ah yes, but Blair is looking for a legacy and here it is. We bring the boys home leaving just Harry to patrol the mean streets of Basra. The prince says goodbye to his clubbing boyhood and becomes a man. In an explosive final shootout, he takes on both Sunni and Shia militias in defence of an orphanage. His dying words are, 'Tell mummy I did my best.' Hearing this, the militias fall into each other's arms, vowing never to fight again. 'He was, in a very real sense,' says Blair, 'the people's prince.' As Elton John sings Candle in the Wind, rewritten again, another river of tears floods Westminster Abbey. A dull thumping is heard. It is Gordon Brown banging his head against the door.
# posted by Bryan Appleyard : 8:40 AM
Friday, February 23, 2007
Congolese Rice, nobody likes a smart arse but don't say I didn't tell you so
From The Times
February 24, 2007
Forget saving Blair’s legacy. Our troops must come first
Matthew Parris
Like old soldiers, controversies do not die, they fade away. Iraq is set to become one of these. The argument is exhausted. So are the protagonists. So are you. So am I.
Listening to the Prime Minister interviewed by John Humphrys on the Today programme on Thursday, I became aware of a once keenly contested debate limping into the sunset. Ever pugnacious, there was yet a sort of sigh in Mr Humphrys’s voice: an inquisitor coming to accept that he never will get a signed confession from this prisoner — belabour and stump him though he may. From Tony Blair we heard the weary defiance of a man who knows he fails to convince, but knows too that he can flail his way through this spat, as he has through every spat before it. Flounder as he may, Mr Blair has become almost impossible to floor.
And as he reeled towards another messy draw, I said to myself: Grow up. What are we asking for? The heads of Blair and Bush on a stick?
It isn’t going to happen. They’ll both retire, grow rich, grow grey and grow mellowly adept at explaining, for the umpteenth time at the umpteenth banquet that, whatever the consequences of what they did, the consequences of not doing it would have been even worse. Few will choose to believe them, but nobody will ever prove them wrong.
Henry Kissinger is still defending his corner over Vietnam. Doyens of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament still insist that the Soviet Union would have crumbled anyway. And Arthur Scargill will die unrepentant about the miners’ strike. Bad causes must be left to wither on the vine.
I find myself suddenly attracted to the Blairite exhortation to “move on”. Let us turn our backs not only on this but on another increasingly pointless argument: the question of what is likely to be Tony Blair’s principal legacy. For the word “likely” doesn’t come into it, and we may dispense with “principal” too. It will be Iraq. Only Iraq. The marble headstone is ready, and there is only one word on it.
Sometimes there simply isn’t an argument. Justly or unjustly a single story towers above the rest in a leader’s career. Churchill? The legacy was victory. Roosevelt? The New Deal. Eden? Suez. Nixon? Watergate. Attlee? The welfare state. Reagan? The fall of the Berlin Wall. On Thursday Mr Blair declared himself proud of what he had done in Iraq. Here at last, then, is a meeting of minds. Let us agree that Iraq is Blair’s legacy, agree to differ on whether that legacy is good or bad, and move on.
For the party most likely to form the next Government, the Conservatives, the need to move on is especially strong. It is now impossible for the Tories to disentangle themselves from the original decision to go to war. An opportunity to do so was briefly presented when it emerged that the Conservative leadership, along with the rest of the country, had been misled over the reasons for the invasion. At that moment the official Opposition could logically and honourably have withdrawn its support for the occupation, but it did not do so. Now it is too late. To renege on its backing for the principle of the invasion only because the subsequent war of occupation is being lost would impress no one. It would look opportunistic.
My Times colleague, Daniel Finkelstein, has indicated (without himself advocating) a possible way through: to say that the decision was “right” in the sense that it appeared reasonable in the circumstances of the time. Events later, events that were unforeseeable at the time, may cause us to regret the decision, but this does not mean we were wrong to take it when we did. It’s not, for instance, foolish to set out without an umbrella if the sky is clear and the forecast benign, even if a freak shower later causes us to regret the decision. In logic, anyway, the Tory party could in this way reconcile its original support for the war with a change of mind today. But it might look slippery, too clever by half. The time it has taken me to construct this paragraph and make the argument (I hope) intelligible suggests that it would not work on a soapbox at the next general election. Nevertheless, in the court of history I think that “if we had had known then what we know now . . .” is the Tories’ best ultimate line of defence. It is probably what the majority of the voters think, too.
The party, however, needs a more immediate way of getting off the hook, for there is surely neither mileage nor wisdom in urging the present Government forward in Iraq. Nor is there profit in buying into what is evidently going to be HMG’s official line, that Britain will withdraw “when the job is done”, which is, er, now.
We have lost. The job has not been done. The job cannot be done. Most people can see that. There is in the air a palpable sense of frustration and defeat. Not for a second will most voters entertain the possibility that the Iraq policy has been a success or that the troops are coming home because their task has been accomplished. If that’s what ministers want to claim, and what Gordon Brown (if he becomes Prime Minister) tries to claim, then the Tories should have nothing to do with it. By most citizens it will be treated with contempt. All the evidence suggests that the public are ready to admit defeat, and ready for their Government to admit defeat, even if ministers are not. Interestingly, polling data show even greater hostility to the war among Conservative voters than among the public as a whole.
So, for the official Opposition, how to get off the hook and back in touch with its own supporters? The answer does not lie in playing catchup with the Liberal Democrats. Charles Kennedy and Sir Menzies Campbell have rightful possession of the antiwar, peacenik, march-against-Bush constituency. And anyway this is slightly uncomfortable ground for Tories because it risks appearing antimilitary. Mr Kennedy was at his least comfortable when accused of “undermining the troops”. The British public, who admire their Armed Forces, are very sensitive to anything that could seem to undermine young men and women whom politicians have sent to war. So are many Conservative backbenchers, as David Cameron will know.
He should go with the Tory grain. Here’s how. The Conservative message on Iraq must be that what is now paramount is the safety and wellbeing of our Armed Forces. All other considerations should bow before this. Hopes of establishing a liberal democracy in Iraq, plans for training up a local police force and Iraqi Army, deference to Washington, sparing the blushes of a beleaguered president, support for the Iraqi Prime Minister and his Government, even the security and wellbeing of the Iraqi people themselves — all these things must now take second place behind the overriding need not to expose our troops to avoidable danger as we draw our forces down.
If that means not dragging out the withdrawal too long, speed it up. If it means not leaving behind a depleted garrison that could be susceptible to surprise assault, then bring them home. The question that must take priority is not “What’s best for Mr Blair’s legacy?” It is “What’s best for the men and women we have sent there?”
To die in a military offensive in a war that looks winnable may be a bearable sorrow. What would be insupportable would be to die in a retreat executed in a manner aimed more to save face than to save soldiers’ lives. As it becomes ever clearer that Britain is disengaging from an operation that has not been a political success, more deaths of British Service personnel will seem increasingly to be lives lost in vain.
The saddest casualties in war are always the ones closest to the armistice. The Conservative Party should seize this truth and make it its own. “If we’re pulling out, make it swift, decisive and clean,” should be the Tories’ theme.
February 24, 2007
Forget saving Blair’s legacy. Our troops must come first
Matthew Parris
Like old soldiers, controversies do not die, they fade away. Iraq is set to become one of these. The argument is exhausted. So are the protagonists. So are you. So am I.
Listening to the Prime Minister interviewed by John Humphrys on the Today programme on Thursday, I became aware of a once keenly contested debate limping into the sunset. Ever pugnacious, there was yet a sort of sigh in Mr Humphrys’s voice: an inquisitor coming to accept that he never will get a signed confession from this prisoner — belabour and stump him though he may. From Tony Blair we heard the weary defiance of a man who knows he fails to convince, but knows too that he can flail his way through this spat, as he has through every spat before it. Flounder as he may, Mr Blair has become almost impossible to floor.
And as he reeled towards another messy draw, I said to myself: Grow up. What are we asking for? The heads of Blair and Bush on a stick?
It isn’t going to happen. They’ll both retire, grow rich, grow grey and grow mellowly adept at explaining, for the umpteenth time at the umpteenth banquet that, whatever the consequences of what they did, the consequences of not doing it would have been even worse. Few will choose to believe them, but nobody will ever prove them wrong.
Henry Kissinger is still defending his corner over Vietnam. Doyens of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament still insist that the Soviet Union would have crumbled anyway. And Arthur Scargill will die unrepentant about the miners’ strike. Bad causes must be left to wither on the vine.
I find myself suddenly attracted to the Blairite exhortation to “move on”. Let us turn our backs not only on this but on another increasingly pointless argument: the question of what is likely to be Tony Blair’s principal legacy. For the word “likely” doesn’t come into it, and we may dispense with “principal” too. It will be Iraq. Only Iraq. The marble headstone is ready, and there is only one word on it.
Sometimes there simply isn’t an argument. Justly or unjustly a single story towers above the rest in a leader’s career. Churchill? The legacy was victory. Roosevelt? The New Deal. Eden? Suez. Nixon? Watergate. Attlee? The welfare state. Reagan? The fall of the Berlin Wall. On Thursday Mr Blair declared himself proud of what he had done in Iraq. Here at last, then, is a meeting of minds. Let us agree that Iraq is Blair’s legacy, agree to differ on whether that legacy is good or bad, and move on.
For the party most likely to form the next Government, the Conservatives, the need to move on is especially strong. It is now impossible for the Tories to disentangle themselves from the original decision to go to war. An opportunity to do so was briefly presented when it emerged that the Conservative leadership, along with the rest of the country, had been misled over the reasons for the invasion. At that moment the official Opposition could logically and honourably have withdrawn its support for the occupation, but it did not do so. Now it is too late. To renege on its backing for the principle of the invasion only because the subsequent war of occupation is being lost would impress no one. It would look opportunistic.
My Times colleague, Daniel Finkelstein, has indicated (without himself advocating) a possible way through: to say that the decision was “right” in the sense that it appeared reasonable in the circumstances of the time. Events later, events that were unforeseeable at the time, may cause us to regret the decision, but this does not mean we were wrong to take it when we did. It’s not, for instance, foolish to set out without an umbrella if the sky is clear and the forecast benign, even if a freak shower later causes us to regret the decision. In logic, anyway, the Tory party could in this way reconcile its original support for the war with a change of mind today. But it might look slippery, too clever by half. The time it has taken me to construct this paragraph and make the argument (I hope) intelligible suggests that it would not work on a soapbox at the next general election. Nevertheless, in the court of history I think that “if we had had known then what we know now . . .” is the Tories’ best ultimate line of defence. It is probably what the majority of the voters think, too.
The party, however, needs a more immediate way of getting off the hook, for there is surely neither mileage nor wisdom in urging the present Government forward in Iraq. Nor is there profit in buying into what is evidently going to be HMG’s official line, that Britain will withdraw “when the job is done”, which is, er, now.
We have lost. The job has not been done. The job cannot be done. Most people can see that. There is in the air a palpable sense of frustration and defeat. Not for a second will most voters entertain the possibility that the Iraq policy has been a success or that the troops are coming home because their task has been accomplished. If that’s what ministers want to claim, and what Gordon Brown (if he becomes Prime Minister) tries to claim, then the Tories should have nothing to do with it. By most citizens it will be treated with contempt. All the evidence suggests that the public are ready to admit defeat, and ready for their Government to admit defeat, even if ministers are not. Interestingly, polling data show even greater hostility to the war among Conservative voters than among the public as a whole.
So, for the official Opposition, how to get off the hook and back in touch with its own supporters? The answer does not lie in playing catchup with the Liberal Democrats. Charles Kennedy and Sir Menzies Campbell have rightful possession of the antiwar, peacenik, march-against-Bush constituency. And anyway this is slightly uncomfortable ground for Tories because it risks appearing antimilitary. Mr Kennedy was at his least comfortable when accused of “undermining the troops”. The British public, who admire their Armed Forces, are very sensitive to anything that could seem to undermine young men and women whom politicians have sent to war. So are many Conservative backbenchers, as David Cameron will know.
He should go with the Tory grain. Here’s how. The Conservative message on Iraq must be that what is now paramount is the safety and wellbeing of our Armed Forces. All other considerations should bow before this. Hopes of establishing a liberal democracy in Iraq, plans for training up a local police force and Iraqi Army, deference to Washington, sparing the blushes of a beleaguered president, support for the Iraqi Prime Minister and his Government, even the security and wellbeing of the Iraqi people themselves — all these things must now take second place behind the overriding need not to expose our troops to avoidable danger as we draw our forces down.
If that means not dragging out the withdrawal too long, speed it up. If it means not leaving behind a depleted garrison that could be susceptible to surprise assault, then bring them home. The question that must take priority is not “What’s best for Mr Blair’s legacy?” It is “What’s best for the men and women we have sent there?”
To die in a military offensive in a war that looks winnable may be a bearable sorrow. What would be insupportable would be to die in a retreat executed in a manner aimed more to save face than to save soldiers’ lives. As it becomes ever clearer that Britain is disengaging from an operation that has not been a political success, more deaths of British Service personnel will seem increasingly to be lives lost in vain.
The saddest casualties in war are always the ones closest to the armistice. The Conservative Party should seize this truth and make it its own. “If we’re pulling out, make it swift, decisive and clean,” should be the Tories’ theme.
I have a dream
The serious faced chap at the front is myself at 4 years of age, and the smiling one is my younger brother David, 3 years, going on a test drive to foster parents from the orphanage. My foster mother is on the right, foster father took the photo, and the other woman is the Matron of the Barnardo's Home in Ripon, in Yorkshire, and I don't know who the little scallywag is with his back to the camera.
I'm feeling sentimental, so I thought I would share the image with you all. The reason I am telling you this story, is that we went to live in a little farmhouse called Throstle Nest Farm, in the village of South Milford, near Leeds in Yorkshire. At an early age I was fascinated with place names. In Anglo Saxon times it was Sud (South) of the Mill Ford (Bridge). I used to love sitting on the Pack Horse Bridge and watch the Beck (stream) flow underneath, and the little fish and the occasional eel; and watch the traffic, especially when the horse racing was on at Tadcaster or York and see all the posh cars come from London. Sometimes The Queen and or the Queen Mother would go by in their chauffeur driven Rolls Royce.
The next town is called Sherburn - in- Elmet, about 2 miles away. One day I asked my foster father why it was called that when it was actually Sherburn in Yorkshire. He said that he did not know. Neither did the headmaster of the primary school. Just by chance, one day, I was looking through a historical atlas of Great Britain, and came across a reference to the Kingdom of Elmet, which was larger than the present day Yorkshire, and included in its territory what is now Yorkshire, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, and Northumbria. Years later, I went to the library in Leeds and did some research. King Athlestan actually had his seat where the present church stands at Sherburn. All very exciting for a child growing up in an area so steeped in history.
At one end of the village, is Steeton Hall and its battlemented gateway is an Ancient Monument. Knights used to ride out of there going on The Crusades. York used to be the capital of England long before London. There is talk going on at the moment to allow Scotland its independence. If this happens, and Wales and Ireland follow suit, Cornwall would wish to go the same way. I have a dream, to re-establish the Kingdom of Elmet and give us the freedom from Westminister rule. I am talking about a revolution here. Does anybody want to jump on my bandwagon. I would certainly make room for Ginger.
I'm feeling sentimental, so I thought I would share the image with you all. The reason I am telling you this story, is that we went to live in a little farmhouse called Throstle Nest Farm, in the village of South Milford, near Leeds in Yorkshire. At an early age I was fascinated with place names. In Anglo Saxon times it was Sud (South) of the Mill Ford (Bridge). I used to love sitting on the Pack Horse Bridge and watch the Beck (stream) flow underneath, and the little fish and the occasional eel; and watch the traffic, especially when the horse racing was on at Tadcaster or York and see all the posh cars come from London. Sometimes The Queen and or the Queen Mother would go by in their chauffeur driven Rolls Royce.
The next town is called Sherburn - in- Elmet, about 2 miles away. One day I asked my foster father why it was called that when it was actually Sherburn in Yorkshire. He said that he did not know. Neither did the headmaster of the primary school. Just by chance, one day, I was looking through a historical atlas of Great Britain, and came across a reference to the Kingdom of Elmet, which was larger than the present day Yorkshire, and included in its territory what is now Yorkshire, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, and Northumbria. Years later, I went to the library in Leeds and did some research. King Athlestan actually had his seat where the present church stands at Sherburn. All very exciting for a child growing up in an area so steeped in history.
At one end of the village, is Steeton Hall and its battlemented gateway is an Ancient Monument. Knights used to ride out of there going on The Crusades. York used to be the capital of England long before London. There is talk going on at the moment to allow Scotland its independence. If this happens, and Wales and Ireland follow suit, Cornwall would wish to go the same way. I have a dream, to re-establish the Kingdom of Elmet and give us the freedom from Westminister rule. I am talking about a revolution here. Does anybody want to jump on my bandwagon. I would certainly make room for Ginger.
Boo! You don't scare us...
From Times Online
February 23, 2007
Comment: Asia no longer in awe of US superpower
Times Asia Editor looks at how Dick Cheney's visit has displayed a new mood in the region
Richard Lloyd Parry, Asia Editor of The Times
A year ago, it would have been hard to imagine Dick Cheney making a tour of Asia like this one.
Back then, the United States and Japan were as one in their refusal to brook any compromise with North Korea over its nuclear programme. But in Tokyo this week, the hawkish Mr Cheney found himself in the position of flogging to the Japanese public an agreement which plenty of them view with suspicion.
A year ago, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, seemed unassailable, a rock solid supporter of Mr Cheney and his president. Today, though, he also felt obliged to meet Kevin Rudd, the Australian Opposition leader who is riding high in opinion polls ands who has promised to pull Australian troops out of Iraq if he is elected.
Events – from the loss of Congress to the Republican party to the North Korean nuclear test, and above all the continuing morass in Iraq – have forced a new realism, even a humility on the US government. From Asia, the change is striking: in Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing, the Bush Administration has shed credibility, authority and respect.
Japanese Cabinet ministers speak openly of US “cockiness” and “childishness”. Long-held principles are jettisoned – after insisting for years that it would not deal one-to-one with North Korea, the US was forced to do exactly that in order to reach the disarmament agreement in the Six Party Talks in Beijing last week. Having reassured Japan that it gave high priority to its demand for the return of Japanese kidnapped by North Korea, the US supported a document last week that made no mention of them.
Mr Cheney made a point of playing down expectations of the agreement. “Pyongyang,” he said, “has much to prove.” But it was his remarks on China that were most interesting.
It is China, remember, which hosted and brokered last week’s talks on Korea, “the first hopeful step towards a better future”, as Mr Cheney put it. But rather than grateful thanks, the emphasis of his remarks was on the threat which China is beginning to represent.
“The Chinese understand that a nuclear North Korea would be a threat to their own security, [but] other actions by the Chinese government send a different message,” he said. “Last month's anti-satellite test and China's continued fast-paced military build-up are less constructive and are not consistent with China's stated goal of a 'peaceful rise'.”
He sounded more than anyone like Japan’s Foreign Minister, Taro Aso, the man who a few weeks ago, called his government “childish”. Was Mr Cheney signalling a new sternness towards China? Or was he merely trying to keep his Japanese friends happy?
February 23, 2007
Comment: Asia no longer in awe of US superpower
Times Asia Editor looks at how Dick Cheney's visit has displayed a new mood in the region
Richard Lloyd Parry, Asia Editor of The Times
A year ago, it would have been hard to imagine Dick Cheney making a tour of Asia like this one.
Back then, the United States and Japan were as one in their refusal to brook any compromise with North Korea over its nuclear programme. But in Tokyo this week, the hawkish Mr Cheney found himself in the position of flogging to the Japanese public an agreement which plenty of them view with suspicion.
A year ago, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, seemed unassailable, a rock solid supporter of Mr Cheney and his president. Today, though, he also felt obliged to meet Kevin Rudd, the Australian Opposition leader who is riding high in opinion polls ands who has promised to pull Australian troops out of Iraq if he is elected.
Events – from the loss of Congress to the Republican party to the North Korean nuclear test, and above all the continuing morass in Iraq – have forced a new realism, even a humility on the US government. From Asia, the change is striking: in Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing, the Bush Administration has shed credibility, authority and respect.
Japanese Cabinet ministers speak openly of US “cockiness” and “childishness”. Long-held principles are jettisoned – after insisting for years that it would not deal one-to-one with North Korea, the US was forced to do exactly that in order to reach the disarmament agreement in the Six Party Talks in Beijing last week. Having reassured Japan that it gave high priority to its demand for the return of Japanese kidnapped by North Korea, the US supported a document last week that made no mention of them.
Mr Cheney made a point of playing down expectations of the agreement. “Pyongyang,” he said, “has much to prove.” But it was his remarks on China that were most interesting.
It is China, remember, which hosted and brokered last week’s talks on Korea, “the first hopeful step towards a better future”, as Mr Cheney put it. But rather than grateful thanks, the emphasis of his remarks was on the threat which China is beginning to represent.
“The Chinese understand that a nuclear North Korea would be a threat to their own security, [but] other actions by the Chinese government send a different message,” he said. “Last month's anti-satellite test and China's continued fast-paced military build-up are less constructive and are not consistent with China's stated goal of a 'peaceful rise'.”
He sounded more than anyone like Japan’s Foreign Minister, Taro Aso, the man who a few weeks ago, called his government “childish”. Was Mr Cheney signalling a new sternness towards China? Or was he merely trying to keep his Japanese friends happy?
The X Files
The truth is out there somewhere. Tony Blair is alleging that his present predicament is down to conspiracy theorists. And that he is proud about having gone to war with Iraq. Meanwhile, Jack Straw who was opposed to the war, is promising a full public inquiry once Tony Blair stands down.
I remember the images on TV of Saddam Hussein's statue being toppled. Recently, a statue of Margaret Thatcher has been erected in the House of Commons by the very people who toppled her from power. There is some hypocrisy about all of this.
Iraq is a foreign country. It posed no threat to either Britain or America, and it was a breach of international law for us to go in and depose the president. Years ago we used to go into foreign lands supposedly to teach the savages about religion, and whilst they knelt down and closed their eyes to pray we would strip the country of its natural resources; gold, silver, diamonds and other precious stones. Here it is no different, except that it was the oil that the American Empire sought to liberate and not the Iraqi people.
This has nothing to do with 9/11, this is not a war on terror, this is about two rich and powerful nations plundering the wealth of another nation. It should be equated with street robbery, it is nothing short of a mugging. And the politicians are mugging the people into believing something else. I wish America would wake up from its American Dream and see it for what it really is...a nightmare!
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Prison politics.
Has the Director of Prison Reform Trust, Juliet Lyon, lost the plot? After emailing me this document http://prisonersvoice.blogspot.com/2007/02exclusive-breaking-news.html I blogged it and contacted some media friends. Only for Juliet Lyon to phone me and ask me to pull it on the grounds that it would harm their tactics. I complied only to find out that she then went and published it on their own website. This was not about tactics. I assume that she was miffed that I had published it before they got their act together. Strangely, she said that she was not yet putting out a press release. However, any journalist worth his or her salts and seeing the story on their website would not need a press release as the information is already out there for grabs. The mind boggles...
Visitors to my site from around the world
Welcome and a big thanks to the visitors from the following locations;
USA; Calgary, Redlands, Littleton, Oaklahoma City, La Valle, Palatine, Springville, Marietta (Georgia or Washington?);
China; Beijing, Fuzhou;
India; Delhi;
Istanbul; (is one of them you Istanbultory?);
Lithuania; Vilnius;
Prague; (is that you Praguetory?);
Belgium; Kortenberg;
United Kingdom; London, Kingston upon Hull, Rawtenstall, Walsall, Birmingham (is that you Bob Piper?), Buckhorn Western, Chatam, Aylesbury.
USA; Calgary, Redlands, Littleton, Oaklahoma City, La Valle, Palatine, Springville, Marietta (Georgia or Washington?);
China; Beijing, Fuzhou;
India; Delhi;
Istanbul; (is one of them you Istanbultory?);
Lithuania; Vilnius;
Prague; (is that you Praguetory?);
Belgium; Kortenberg;
United Kingdom; London, Kingston upon Hull, Rawtenstall, Walsall, Birmingham (is that you Bob Piper?), Buckhorn Western, Chatam, Aylesbury.
Just rambling.
As it's now 1.30 GMT, Thursday, yesterday I was speaking to Simon Irael, Home Affairs, Channel 4, about the prisoners votes case and that the Prison Reform Trust is preparing to submit its response to the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Basically, we are saying that the consultation process is legally flawed. I submitted my advice before the recent case in the High Court which Greenpeace won arguing that the consultation process for nuclear power was legally flawed. The legal principles are the same, so I do not anticipate any problems in the court if the government does not change its position. I also spoke to Duncan Campbell, a journalist at the Guardian and he is after some advice on the Criminal Justice System, in particular the overcrowded penal system.
On Tuesday, I saw my probation officer and he dropped the bombshell that he is being moved onto another job and that in two weeks time he will be introducing me to another one. The trouble with probation officers is that they are like a lucky dip. You might be lucky and get a good one, or unlucky and get a bad one like the one before last. If he or she cocks up, you might suddenly find yourself arrested and recalled to prison even if you have not committed any offence. They only have to believe that your risk level has become unacceptable. There has to be a relationship of trust for it to work out. Just when I was getting along fine, I will have to go through a period of uncertainty.
Last night I watched a programme on BBC 2, about a 14 year old boy who has Aspergers Syndrome. He is one of 4 children with it in a family of 7 children, no father about he had buggered off, but at least he has a wonderful and understanding mother. I had seen it before, but this time I was concentrating more and relating to the symptoms. The first time I missed the significance of diet and how certain foods or ingredients make matters worse. For me it is like a roller coaster ride, the ups and downs of managing my own life and trying to walk through the life outside without coming into conflict with anybody. When two worlds collide there is conflict. I am constantly having to watch out for something that will trigger my dog Rocky into mischief. I can usually avoid the situation by watching his body language and pre-empt him chasing after a cyclist, jogger, postman or whatever. I have heard or read that dogs are supposed to be colourblind, I do not believe this as Rocky takes exception to people wearing Day Glow Green, Orange or Yellow jackets.
I'm feeling tired now, I'm off to bed.
On Tuesday, I saw my probation officer and he dropped the bombshell that he is being moved onto another job and that in two weeks time he will be introducing me to another one. The trouble with probation officers is that they are like a lucky dip. You might be lucky and get a good one, or unlucky and get a bad one like the one before last. If he or she cocks up, you might suddenly find yourself arrested and recalled to prison even if you have not committed any offence. They only have to believe that your risk level has become unacceptable. There has to be a relationship of trust for it to work out. Just when I was getting along fine, I will have to go through a period of uncertainty.
Last night I watched a programme on BBC 2, about a 14 year old boy who has Aspergers Syndrome. He is one of 4 children with it in a family of 7 children, no father about he had buggered off, but at least he has a wonderful and understanding mother. I had seen it before, but this time I was concentrating more and relating to the symptoms. The first time I missed the significance of diet and how certain foods or ingredients make matters worse. For me it is like a roller coaster ride, the ups and downs of managing my own life and trying to walk through the life outside without coming into conflict with anybody. When two worlds collide there is conflict. I am constantly having to watch out for something that will trigger my dog Rocky into mischief. I can usually avoid the situation by watching his body language and pre-empt him chasing after a cyclist, jogger, postman or whatever. I have heard or read that dogs are supposed to be colourblind, I do not believe this as Rocky takes exception to people wearing Day Glow Green, Orange or Yellow jackets.
I'm feeling tired now, I'm off to bed.
Going forwards backwards, the retreat from an illegal war
Onwards British soldiers marching backwards to war
With the legacy of Blair
To stop Prince Harry going on to war.
With the legacy of Blair
To stop Prince Harry going on to war.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Truly a world wide web.
Yesterday I installed Google Analytics and found out that I get visitors from these places from around the world: welcome Beijing, Haidar-Pacha, Vilnius, Redlands, Oklahomah City and Marietta, and Kortenberg, and all those in the various cities in the UK. A special mention to all those referred from Gingersnaps.
Exclusive - Breaking News
Last month the Prison Reform Trust sought my legal advice in response to Lord Falconer's dodgy dossier. (Some readers may recall that recently Greenpeace won a High Court action in another legally flawed consultation exercise.) That advice was accepted by the PRT and is now the subject of a press release. I have published it below.
Response of the Prison Reform Trust to the consultation produced by the Department for Constitutional Affairs:
‘Voting Rights of Convicted Prisoners Detained within the United Kingdom
The UK Government’s response to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of Hirst v. The United Kingdom’
February 2007
For further information contact
Juliet Lyon, Director
Geoff Dobson, Deputy Director
E-mails: juliet.lyon@prisonreformtrust.org.uk geoff.dobson@prisonreformtrust.org.uk Tel: 020 7251 5070
PRISON REFORM TRUST, 15, Northburgh Street, London EC1V 0JR
Tel: 020 7251 5070 Fax: 020 7251 5076
E-mail: prt@prisonreformtrust.org.uk
The Prison Reform Trust (PRT) is an independent UK charity working to create a just, humane and effective penal system. We do this by inquiring into the workings of the system; informing prisoners, staff and the wider public; and by influencing Parliament, Government and officials towards reform.
INTRODUCTION
The Prison Reform Trust (PRT) was pleased to be granted permission by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to intervene in writing in support of the applicant’s position at the Grand Chamber. PRT welcomed the judgment that Mr Hirst’s convention rights under Protocol 1 Article 3 had been breached.
Protocol 1, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees “free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.” This guarantee is now contained in the Human Rights Act, which became part of law throughout the United Kingdom on 2 October 2000.
The electoral ban on sentenced prisoners voting is contained in Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, amended by the Representation of the People Acts 1985 and 2000. The disenfranchisement of sentenced prisoners dates back to the Forfeiture Act of 1870. The origins of the ban are rooted in a notion of civic death, a punishment entailing the withdrawal of citizenship rights.
Remand prisoners, people imprisoned for contempt of court and fine defaulters held in prison are eligible to vote. The Electoral Commission has been working to ensure that those held on remand, a target group in the Commission’s categorisation of ‘hard to reach voters’, are fully aware of, and can exercise, their rights. The anomalous position of the very many British citizens held in prisons overseas is not stated in consultation paper annex A, ‘History of the UK’s policy on voting rights of prisoners’. It is however highlighted by the following parliamentary question and the response given on 7 February 2007:
Prisoner Voting
Mr. Heald: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether British citizens imprisoned in jails overseas are eligible to vote in UK general elections if they have been resident in the UK in the last 15 years. [117622]
Bridget Prentice: The Representation of the People Act 1985 (as amended) provides a facility for British citizens overseas to retain their voting rights if they have been resident in the UK in the previous 15 years, so long as they are not otherwise subject to a legal incapacity to vote. The Representation of the People Act 1983 makes convicted prisoners detained in a penal institution (or unlawfully at large from one) legally incapable of voting in a UK general election. However, ‘penal institution’ is defined in the 1983 Act by reference to Prisons Acts, which do not extend to foreign jails.
Accordingly, British citizens imprisoned in jails overseas are eligible to vote in UK general elections if they are otherwise eligible to vote as an overseas elector under the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1985.
Other important omissions from annex A of the consultation paper, ‘History of the UK’s policy on voting rights of prisoners’, include, the policy clarification given by then DCA minister Chris Leslie that prisoners serving a sentence of intermittent custody would be entitled to vote in an election if the date for this fell on a day when their punishment was being served in the community rather than a day when it was being served in custody, underscoring the ad hoc, and somewhat confused, situation regarding prisoners’ voting rights. Nor did it give the grounds for dismissal of other UK legal challenges namely that the enfranchisement of prisoners was said to be a matter for parliament not the courts (England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) decisions (4th April 2001) Pearson and Mertinez v. Home Secretary and others; Hirst v. Attorney General BAILII Database EWHC Admin 239).
In March 2005 PRT and UNLOCK’ the national association of ex-offenders, published a briefing paper Barred from Voting: the right to vote for sentenced prisoners. The briefing concluded:
The UK ban on prisoners voting is a relic from the nineteenth century, which is neither a deterrent nor an effective punishment. The right to vote poses no risk to public safety. Giving prisoners the vote would encourage them to take the responsibilities that come with citizenship. It would also encourage politicians to take more of an active interest in prisons, which in turn should raise the level of debate about prisons and penal policy. There is widespread support for the removal of the ban, which the European Court has ruled violates human rights law. The Government should act to restore the right to vote to sentenced prisoners without delay.
PRT believes the current consultation to be a flawed exercise. It precludes a legitimate option from consideration: that all sentenced prisoners should be enfranchised as is the case in many other EU countries. This is the option favoured by PRT.
Moreover, it declares a Government view in favour of the status quo. It invites respondents contrary to the ECtHR ruling to comment on an option declared unlawful – that of automatic, blanket disenfranchisement. This calls into question the validity of the consultation process. The nature of the consultation exercise will doubtless be a matter for consideration, either by the Parliamentary Ombudsman or when Parliament is presented with legislative proposals.
Since the consultation paper was produced the Republic of Ireland has moved fully to enfranchise its prisoners. Following parliamentary debate, the Dial decided to meet ‘ fully our obligations under the relevant provisions of The Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’ (Dial Debate, Vol.624 No %, Electoral (Amendment Bill) 2006:Order for Second Stage). Eighteen out of 51 Council of Europe countries have no restrictions on voting. In the case of prisoners held in British and American jails in Iraq the decision was taken that they should maintain their voting rights as an ‘aid to the democratic process’. Some European countries ban some sentenced prisoners from voting. For example, in France courts have the power to impose loss of voting rights as an additional punishment. The UK remains one of only nine Council of Europe countries to disenfranchise sentenced prisoners.
The Grand Chamber based its ruling on the following general principles:
i) Protocol 1, Article 3 “the Court has established that it guarantees individual rights, including the right to vote” and that “it required the government to take positive measures as opposed to merely refraining from interference” (paras. 56-57).
ii) Democratic Principles, “The Court would use this occasion to emphasise that the rights guaranteed under Article 3 of Protocol No1 are crucial to establishing and maintaining the foundations of an effective and meaningful democracy governed by the rule of law”(para.58).
iii) Universal suffrage, “the right to vote is not a privilege. In the twenty-first century, the presumption in a democratic State must be in favour of inclusion...Universal suffrage has become the basic principle” (para59).
iv) Legitimate aim, the Grand Chamber recognises that Article 3 of Protocol No.1 does not specify or limit the aims which a measure must pursue. The Grand Chamber rejected “the notion that imprisonment after conviction involves the forfeiture of rights beyond the right to liberty, and especially the assertion that voting is a privilege not a right...It recalls that the Chamber in its judgment expressed reservations as to the validity of these aims, citing the majority opinion of the Canadian Supreme Court in Sauve (No.2)(paras.74-75).
v) Proportionality, “The Court recalls that the Chamber found that the measure lacked proportionality, essentially as it was an automatic blanket ban imposed on all convicted prisoners which was arbitrary in its effects and could no longer be said to serve the aim of punishing the applicant once his tariff (that period representing retribution and deterrence) had expired”(para.76).
vi) Margin of appreciation, “while the Court reiterates that the margin of appreciation is wide, it is not all-embracing. Further, although the situation was somewhat improved by the Act of 2000 which for the first time granted the vote to persons detained on remand, section 3 of the 1983 Act remains a blunt instrument. It strips of their Convention right to vote a significant category of persons and it does so in a way which is indiscriminate. The provision imposes a blanket restriction on all convicted prisoners in prison. It applies automatically to such prisoners, irrespective of the length of their sentence and irrespective of the nature or gravity of their offence and their individual circumstances. Such a general, automatic and indiscriminate restriction on a vitally important Convention right must be seen as falling outside any acceptable margin of appreciation, however wide that margin might be, as being incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No.1(para.82)”.
The Grand Chamber also stated:
“There is, therefore, no question that a prisoner forfeits his Convention rights merely because of his status as a person detained following conviction. Nor is there any place under the Convention system, where tolerance and broadmindedness are the acknowledged hallmarks of democratic society, for automatic disenfranchisement based purely on what might offend public opinion” (para. 70).
While the consultation paper makes reference to the above, it also indicates government’s view that the enfranchisement of sentenced prisoners, citizens behind bars, is unlikely to find favour with the public. It makes no reference to those on public record as fully in support of the enfranchisement of sentenced prisoners, nor does it refer to their stated reasons for coming to this view, based on considerable experience and knowledge. These include former and current HM Chief Inspectors of Prisons, the Prison Governors Association, the Anglican and Catholic Bishops to Prisons, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the many organisations working in the field which comprise the Penal Affairs Consortium, Liberty and other civil liberties and human rights organisations, former Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd, member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, David Winnick MP and other parliamentarians across parties (EDM posted 2nd March 2004).
Finally, it is worth reflecting that the ECtHR ruling that the UK Government’s blanket ban on sentenced prisoners voting was in violation of Protocol 1, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights was made in March 2004. The finding was unanimous. The appeal to the Grand Chamber, the delay before a response was given by the UK Government and the announcement of two consultation exercises might be described as procrastination.
The remainder of this response comprises answers to the questions in the consultation paper. PRT takes the view that the narrative and questions in the consultation paper are skewed to produce answers in support of the Government’s position and to inhibit views in favour of the enfranchisement of all sentenced prisoners. PRT regrets that the Government did not accept the ECtHR ruling as an opportunity to consider the benefits that would arise from giving sentenced prisoners the right to vote.
RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Question 1
Do you support the proposal that enfranchisement of detained prisoners should be determined by reference to the length of sentence they receive?
No – PRT believes that all prisoners should have the right to vote.
Question 2
What length of sentence do you consider appropriate as the threshold above which prisoners will be disenfranchised? Please give reasons for the threshold you suggest.
The case for enfranchising all prisoners stems from the view that they remain citizens while incarcerated, deprivation of liberty being their punishment. Removal of the nineteenth century concept of ‘civic death’ would provide a clear statement of their citizenship and act as an aid to rehabilitation and eventual resettlement. It would allow prisoners a continued, tangible stake in society. It is worth noting that John Hirst brought his case to the ECtHR, and was considered to meet its admissibility criteria, whist serving a sentence for the serious offence of manslaughter
Question 3
Should the decision to either grant or withdraw voting rights from convicted prisoners be made by UK sentencers on a case by case basis, at the time of sentencing? Please give reasons to support your view, eg. If you do not believe sentencers should be given a power to determine voting rights, is this because you believe it would place an unjustifiable burden on sentencers?
No – there is no need for courts to consider the matter on a case by case basis if all prisoners are enfranchised.
Question 4
If the Government were to follow this approach, which variant do you favour?
that statute should provide that convicted and sentenced prisoners should automatically lose their right to vote, but subject to the sentencing judge’s right to specify that they shall be entitled to retain that right.
That statute should remove the general rule of disenfranchisement of sentenced prisoners, but should confer on sentencing judges the right to disqualify sentenced offenders.
Neither – the general rule of disenfranchisement should simply be removed.
Question 5
Should offences specifically related to the electoral process automatically attract a withdrawal of the franchise? Please provide reasons to support your answer.
No – by retaining the franchise those who have attempted to manipulate the process would be constantly reminded of the importance of an inclusive, democratic process.
Question 6
Should any voting rights given to prisoners detained in mental hospitals be determined on the same basis as ordinary prisoner, or are there any categories that should be treated exceptionally? Please list those categories and give reasons.
As before, all prisoners should have the right to vote.
Question 7
If your answer to question 6 was no, do you consider that any categories of detained offenders in mental hospitals should be enfranchised?
PRT’s answer to question 6 is ‘Yes’.
Question 8
Should any of the circumstances covered by the statutory provisions referred to in Annex B more properly be aligned with the position of pre-conviction remand prisoners?
Yes – unconvicted and convicted persons in the categories set out in Annex B should be enfranchised.
Response of the Prison Reform Trust to the consultation produced by the Department for Constitutional Affairs:
‘Voting Rights of Convicted Prisoners Detained within the United Kingdom
The UK Government’s response to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of Hirst v. The United Kingdom’
February 2007
For further information contact
Juliet Lyon, Director
Geoff Dobson, Deputy Director
E-mails: juliet.lyon@prisonreformtrust.org.uk geoff.dobson@prisonreformtrust.org.uk Tel: 020 7251 5070
PRISON REFORM TRUST, 15, Northburgh Street, London EC1V 0JR
Tel: 020 7251 5070 Fax: 020 7251 5076
E-mail: prt@prisonreformtrust.org.uk
The Prison Reform Trust (PRT) is an independent UK charity working to create a just, humane and effective penal system. We do this by inquiring into the workings of the system; informing prisoners, staff and the wider public; and by influencing Parliament, Government and officials towards reform.
INTRODUCTION
The Prison Reform Trust (PRT) was pleased to be granted permission by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to intervene in writing in support of the applicant’s position at the Grand Chamber. PRT welcomed the judgment that Mr Hirst’s convention rights under Protocol 1 Article 3 had been breached.
Protocol 1, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees “free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.” This guarantee is now contained in the Human Rights Act, which became part of law throughout the United Kingdom on 2 October 2000.
The electoral ban on sentenced prisoners voting is contained in Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, amended by the Representation of the People Acts 1985 and 2000. The disenfranchisement of sentenced prisoners dates back to the Forfeiture Act of 1870. The origins of the ban are rooted in a notion of civic death, a punishment entailing the withdrawal of citizenship rights.
Remand prisoners, people imprisoned for contempt of court and fine defaulters held in prison are eligible to vote. The Electoral Commission has been working to ensure that those held on remand, a target group in the Commission’s categorisation of ‘hard to reach voters’, are fully aware of, and can exercise, their rights. The anomalous position of the very many British citizens held in prisons overseas is not stated in consultation paper annex A, ‘History of the UK’s policy on voting rights of prisoners’. It is however highlighted by the following parliamentary question and the response given on 7 February 2007:
Prisoner Voting
Mr. Heald: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether British citizens imprisoned in jails overseas are eligible to vote in UK general elections if they have been resident in the UK in the last 15 years. [117622]
Bridget Prentice: The Representation of the People Act 1985 (as amended) provides a facility for British citizens overseas to retain their voting rights if they have been resident in the UK in the previous 15 years, so long as they are not otherwise subject to a legal incapacity to vote. The Representation of the People Act 1983 makes convicted prisoners detained in a penal institution (or unlawfully at large from one) legally incapable of voting in a UK general election. However, ‘penal institution’ is defined in the 1983 Act by reference to Prisons Acts, which do not extend to foreign jails.
Accordingly, British citizens imprisoned in jails overseas are eligible to vote in UK general elections if they are otherwise eligible to vote as an overseas elector under the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1985.
Other important omissions from annex A of the consultation paper, ‘History of the UK’s policy on voting rights of prisoners’, include, the policy clarification given by then DCA minister Chris Leslie that prisoners serving a sentence of intermittent custody would be entitled to vote in an election if the date for this fell on a day when their punishment was being served in the community rather than a day when it was being served in custody, underscoring the ad hoc, and somewhat confused, situation regarding prisoners’ voting rights. Nor did it give the grounds for dismissal of other UK legal challenges namely that the enfranchisement of prisoners was said to be a matter for parliament not the courts (England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) decisions (4th April 2001) Pearson and Mertinez v. Home Secretary and others; Hirst v. Attorney General BAILII Database EWHC Admin 239).
In March 2005 PRT and UNLOCK’ the national association of ex-offenders, published a briefing paper Barred from Voting: the right to vote for sentenced prisoners. The briefing concluded:
The UK ban on prisoners voting is a relic from the nineteenth century, which is neither a deterrent nor an effective punishment. The right to vote poses no risk to public safety. Giving prisoners the vote would encourage them to take the responsibilities that come with citizenship. It would also encourage politicians to take more of an active interest in prisons, which in turn should raise the level of debate about prisons and penal policy. There is widespread support for the removal of the ban, which the European Court has ruled violates human rights law. The Government should act to restore the right to vote to sentenced prisoners without delay.
PRT believes the current consultation to be a flawed exercise. It precludes a legitimate option from consideration: that all sentenced prisoners should be enfranchised as is the case in many other EU countries. This is the option favoured by PRT.
Moreover, it declares a Government view in favour of the status quo. It invites respondents contrary to the ECtHR ruling to comment on an option declared unlawful – that of automatic, blanket disenfranchisement. This calls into question the validity of the consultation process. The nature of the consultation exercise will doubtless be a matter for consideration, either by the Parliamentary Ombudsman or when Parliament is presented with legislative proposals.
Since the consultation paper was produced the Republic of Ireland has moved fully to enfranchise its prisoners. Following parliamentary debate, the Dial decided to meet ‘ fully our obligations under the relevant provisions of The Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’ (Dial Debate, Vol.624 No %, Electoral (Amendment Bill) 2006:Order for Second Stage). Eighteen out of 51 Council of Europe countries have no restrictions on voting. In the case of prisoners held in British and American jails in Iraq the decision was taken that they should maintain their voting rights as an ‘aid to the democratic process’. Some European countries ban some sentenced prisoners from voting. For example, in France courts have the power to impose loss of voting rights as an additional punishment. The UK remains one of only nine Council of Europe countries to disenfranchise sentenced prisoners.
The Grand Chamber based its ruling on the following general principles:
i) Protocol 1, Article 3 “the Court has established that it guarantees individual rights, including the right to vote” and that “it required the government to take positive measures as opposed to merely refraining from interference” (paras. 56-57).
ii) Democratic Principles, “The Court would use this occasion to emphasise that the rights guaranteed under Article 3 of Protocol No1 are crucial to establishing and maintaining the foundations of an effective and meaningful democracy governed by the rule of law”(para.58).
iii) Universal suffrage, “the right to vote is not a privilege. In the twenty-first century, the presumption in a democratic State must be in favour of inclusion...Universal suffrage has become the basic principle” (para59).
iv) Legitimate aim, the Grand Chamber recognises that Article 3 of Protocol No.1 does not specify or limit the aims which a measure must pursue. The Grand Chamber rejected “the notion that imprisonment after conviction involves the forfeiture of rights beyond the right to liberty, and especially the assertion that voting is a privilege not a right...It recalls that the Chamber in its judgment expressed reservations as to the validity of these aims, citing the majority opinion of the Canadian Supreme Court in Sauve (No.2)(paras.74-75).
v) Proportionality, “The Court recalls that the Chamber found that the measure lacked proportionality, essentially as it was an automatic blanket ban imposed on all convicted prisoners which was arbitrary in its effects and could no longer be said to serve the aim of punishing the applicant once his tariff (that period representing retribution and deterrence) had expired”(para.76).
vi) Margin of appreciation, “while the Court reiterates that the margin of appreciation is wide, it is not all-embracing. Further, although the situation was somewhat improved by the Act of 2000 which for the first time granted the vote to persons detained on remand, section 3 of the 1983 Act remains a blunt instrument. It strips of their Convention right to vote a significant category of persons and it does so in a way which is indiscriminate. The provision imposes a blanket restriction on all convicted prisoners in prison. It applies automatically to such prisoners, irrespective of the length of their sentence and irrespective of the nature or gravity of their offence and their individual circumstances. Such a general, automatic and indiscriminate restriction on a vitally important Convention right must be seen as falling outside any acceptable margin of appreciation, however wide that margin might be, as being incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No.1(para.82)”.
The Grand Chamber also stated:
“There is, therefore, no question that a prisoner forfeits his Convention rights merely because of his status as a person detained following conviction. Nor is there any place under the Convention system, where tolerance and broadmindedness are the acknowledged hallmarks of democratic society, for automatic disenfranchisement based purely on what might offend public opinion” (para. 70).
While the consultation paper makes reference to the above, it also indicates government’s view that the enfranchisement of sentenced prisoners, citizens behind bars, is unlikely to find favour with the public. It makes no reference to those on public record as fully in support of the enfranchisement of sentenced prisoners, nor does it refer to their stated reasons for coming to this view, based on considerable experience and knowledge. These include former and current HM Chief Inspectors of Prisons, the Prison Governors Association, the Anglican and Catholic Bishops to Prisons, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the many organisations working in the field which comprise the Penal Affairs Consortium, Liberty and other civil liberties and human rights organisations, former Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd, member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, David Winnick MP and other parliamentarians across parties (EDM posted 2nd March 2004).
Finally, it is worth reflecting that the ECtHR ruling that the UK Government’s blanket ban on sentenced prisoners voting was in violation of Protocol 1, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights was made in March 2004. The finding was unanimous. The appeal to the Grand Chamber, the delay before a response was given by the UK Government and the announcement of two consultation exercises might be described as procrastination.
The remainder of this response comprises answers to the questions in the consultation paper. PRT takes the view that the narrative and questions in the consultation paper are skewed to produce answers in support of the Government’s position and to inhibit views in favour of the enfranchisement of all sentenced prisoners. PRT regrets that the Government did not accept the ECtHR ruling as an opportunity to consider the benefits that would arise from giving sentenced prisoners the right to vote.
RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Question 1
Do you support the proposal that enfranchisement of detained prisoners should be determined by reference to the length of sentence they receive?
No – PRT believes that all prisoners should have the right to vote.
Question 2
What length of sentence do you consider appropriate as the threshold above which prisoners will be disenfranchised? Please give reasons for the threshold you suggest.
The case for enfranchising all prisoners stems from the view that they remain citizens while incarcerated, deprivation of liberty being their punishment. Removal of the nineteenth century concept of ‘civic death’ would provide a clear statement of their citizenship and act as an aid to rehabilitation and eventual resettlement. It would allow prisoners a continued, tangible stake in society. It is worth noting that John Hirst brought his case to the ECtHR, and was considered to meet its admissibility criteria, whist serving a sentence for the serious offence of manslaughter
Question 3
Should the decision to either grant or withdraw voting rights from convicted prisoners be made by UK sentencers on a case by case basis, at the time of sentencing? Please give reasons to support your view, eg. If you do not believe sentencers should be given a power to determine voting rights, is this because you believe it would place an unjustifiable burden on sentencers?
No – there is no need for courts to consider the matter on a case by case basis if all prisoners are enfranchised.
Question 4
If the Government were to follow this approach, which variant do you favour?
that statute should provide that convicted and sentenced prisoners should automatically lose their right to vote, but subject to the sentencing judge’s right to specify that they shall be entitled to retain that right.
That statute should remove the general rule of disenfranchisement of sentenced prisoners, but should confer on sentencing judges the right to disqualify sentenced offenders.
Neither – the general rule of disenfranchisement should simply be removed.
Question 5
Should offences specifically related to the electoral process automatically attract a withdrawal of the franchise? Please provide reasons to support your answer.
No – by retaining the franchise those who have attempted to manipulate the process would be constantly reminded of the importance of an inclusive, democratic process.
Question 6
Should any voting rights given to prisoners detained in mental hospitals be determined on the same basis as ordinary prisoner, or are there any categories that should be treated exceptionally? Please list those categories and give reasons.
As before, all prisoners should have the right to vote.
Question 7
If your answer to question 6 was no, do you consider that any categories of detained offenders in mental hospitals should be enfranchised?
PRT’s answer to question 6 is ‘Yes’.
Question 8
Should any of the circumstances covered by the statutory provisions referred to in Annex B more properly be aligned with the position of pre-conviction remand prisoners?
Yes – unconvicted and convicted persons in the categories set out in Annex B should be enfranchised.
Spot the difference? Click on the link (the bar) to see Iain Dale has been caught out lying again...
The lie:
That Blair Roadpricing Email in Full...
Photo credit: Bloggerheads.com
The truth:
From Times Online
February 21, 2007
Tony Blair's e-mail reply to almost two million who petitioned against road pricing
Tony Blair has e-mailed almost two million people who petitioned against road pricing plans explaining Government's position
Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the Downing Street website.
This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain's transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network.
It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible.
That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. That's why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further.
But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work and inform decisions on a national scheme. And funds raised from these local schemes will be used to improve transport in those areas.
One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad. It's bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects people's quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government.
Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.
Part of the solution is to improve public transport, and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. We're also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving.
But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion.
One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. Given the forecast growth in traffic, doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses.
A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity.
Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as £30m, you'll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail.
That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone's interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further.
It has been calculated that a national scheme - as part of a wider package of measures - could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected - as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesn't hold information about where vehicles have been. But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a "Big Brother" society.
I know many people's biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It won't. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.
Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided.
Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don't have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, as will Parliament.
We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Blair
That Blair Roadpricing Email in Full...
Photo credit: Bloggerheads.com
The truth:
From Times Online
February 21, 2007
Tony Blair's e-mail reply to almost two million who petitioned against road pricing
Tony Blair has e-mailed almost two million people who petitioned against road pricing plans explaining Government's position
Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the Downing Street website.
This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain's transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network.
It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible.
That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. That's why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further.
But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work and inform decisions on a national scheme. And funds raised from these local schemes will be used to improve transport in those areas.
One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad. It's bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects people's quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government.
Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.
Part of the solution is to improve public transport, and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. We're also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving.
But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion.
One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. Given the forecast growth in traffic, doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses.
A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity.
Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as £30m, you'll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail.
That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone's interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further.
It has been calculated that a national scheme - as part of a wider package of measures - could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected - as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesn't hold information about where vehicles have been. But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a "Big Brother" society.
I know many people's biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It won't. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.
Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided.
Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don't have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, as will Parliament.
We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Blair
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Conspiracy and the Blog War - Let the battle commence!
Information is power. And, politics is about power. I must admit, the first time that I saw Croydonian on 18doughtystreet.com the internet TV station, I formed the opinion that he was arrogant, a snob, and effeminate in mannerisms. The type I take an instant dislike to. When I saw him again, on Blogger TV last night, I groaned silently. But, then I laughed out loud when I caught a flash of him wearing day glow yellow socks! How can you take such a clown seriously? Still, as Blogger TV is my brainchild, I did not switch off and suffered the rest of the show in silence. I was thankful when it finished 5 minutes early, it just gave me enough time to make a coffee before watching The News at Ten on BBC1, followed by Newsnight on BBC2. There was a right old ding dong of a battle on congestion charges. They say that a change is as good as a rest, I had forgotten how good that programme can be, it was almost worth me going out and buying a TV Licence. There again, I have this thing against Crapita and I don't intend to boost it's profits when there is no need to pay.
On Blogger TV, The Chunt brought up the subject of the Wife in the North and her reported £70,000 book deal. Iain was miffed at the size of the advance, and there was a bit of bitchiness. True, when I read that she had a Times connection, and the Times broke the story, there is a whiff of a possible conspiracy. Still, she writes well and that cannot be taken away from her. Unlike some of the cretins who posted on Croydonian relatively recently.
I was looking for Steve Taylor's blog, pigeon something or other, to provide a link on my site, and searched Google for prisonlawinsideout to see if his reference too me was in that place. It wasn't, but I stumbled upon "Stupid criminal of the year" on Croydonian and he mentioned that it was not a reference too me. The twit istanbultory suggested that my blog must be in the running for worst blog (obviously he has not read Rachel North London's post on her blog where she opined that jailhouselawyer has a top blog). Newmania(c), I was surprised to learn is male, as I had wrongly supposed that the bitchy comments came from a female. In any event, he refers to my blog as "Eugene" and it is a reference to something sung by Pink Floyd. It was lost on Croydonian and I am puzzled too. I know that in prison "The Mad Dog of Pudsey" used to call me Crazy Diamond, and this certainly came from the lyrics of Pink Floyd as we used to smoke dope and play their records in Long Lartin Prison. "Peter Hitchens" before he bottled it to the real Peter Hitchens posted this comment "The axe murderer is now barred from guido no doubt our mr dale has done likewise". As usual The Hitch, who is now my prison bitch, was talking shit. I still post on both of those sites. Croydonian replied "He's already got a lifetime - and life means life...- ban here, in advance of any attempt post". So, I put it to the test and posted a comment.
"Croydonian: You're a bore. Bring it on, tosser!". He replied (haughtily) "Mr Hirst, Do not post here again. Ever. My comment makers find you morally reprehensible and even supposing that I did not, that would be sufficient to bar you. Your repeated threats of making recourse to legal action are out of place in the convivial place that is the British political blogosphere, and I would counsel you to research the outcome of Dering v Uris before filing a libel action that will most probably be struck out at the first instance. You are also a solipsistic bore with the characteristic chippiness of the autodidact. If you choose to ignore this, any comments you make including any emanating from your IP address but with different alias will be deleted". So, I caught him out in a lie. I had to laugh out loud at "the convivial place that is the British political blogosphere". What a numpty, hello, anyone in there, it's a jungle, you fucking muppet! When the idiot has the string of legal victories that I have amassed, it might just be possible that I would seek his advice, but doubtful, as I am the number one in the country in this area of expertise. Talk about teaching your grandmother to suck eggs...It's a matter of public record that I am self-taught, that's why I don't need lessons from someone with a little knowledge.
Anonymous said: "I think I have also tripped up his budding media career, I can't believe Dale was thinking of having the fucker on his programme". And, there I was thinking it must have been something I said. It is true that Iain Dale both announced on his blog and on 18DS that he was inviting me on to discuss the prisoners votes case. Iain Dale has not had the common decency to email me and rescind the offer and give his reasons for so doing. I think that it is time that Iain Dale came clean about this whole affair. I have exposed a conspiracy. Yet more sleaze from the Tory Party! Just as well he was not selected. There is already enough corruption in politics without adding to it by someone heavily engaged in a conspiracy. At the very least, I believe that Iain Dale should offer me a public apology for his ungentlemanly conduct. Is this how Iain Dale repays the man for giving him the idea for Blogger TV, which has proved to be the most popular progamme on 18DS? Besides being a prison law consultant, I am also a media consultant (albeit not in the same league as Max Clifford). It just goes to show how ignorant some of these bloggers and posters are. It's Iain Dale's and the viewers loss. I have a very good relationship with the media (not the RedTops), and they have based their prejudices on one article by Andrew O'Hagan. Admittedly, it was not the best article ever written about me. But, I thought the photo was good and use it on my profile on this blog.
Croydonian posted: "Did the Dalemeister pull him? If so, stout work all round". Anonymous replied: "the axe murderer wasn't exactly candid despite his claim) manslaughter can mean you were unlucky to get into a fight and somebody died, could happen to any of us. A bit different from axeing somebodies mum to death because you felt like it and then not express remorse, he should be either dead or at least in prison". On the contrary, I am very candid and believe that honesty is the best policy. This idiot on the other hand, refers to murderer and then manslaughter and gives the vision in his head which does not match the facts. It is a pity that he did not watch the 15 minute Ch4 News item in which Simon Israel went into the circumstances of my case, or listen to the Michael Buerk programme, The Choice on Radio 4, when he spent half an hour on the subject. I am a very literal person, and when as a child I exposed white lies by adults I lost trust in them. I did not know then that this literal approach was down to my Aspergers Syndrome. In the past I have been accused of being too truthful. I don't believe that anybody can be that. However, I have learnt that the truth can sometimes hurt and that some people prefer to tell or hear white lies. And, that I then get accused of saying something inappropriate. I think that we all do that at times, but with Aspergers it is more common.
On the issue of remorse, the first person who opined that I showed no sign of remorse was a police doctor who asked me no questions in relation to the offence and only took intimate samples from my person. People with Aspergers have difficulty with empathy. Its not the same as not expressing remorse. The diminished responsibility, at the time of the offence, meant that I was not in my right mind, that is, mentally off balance. Therefore, full criminal responsibility is not present. I cannot feel guilt for being mentally ill. I handed myself into the police. The Court of Appeal has stated on, at least, two occasions that someone who self reports themselves to the police is a strong indication of remorse. I have seen prisoners cry in the dock, not out of remorse but out of self pity and some people are fooled by this display. One day on the prison exercise yard I was talking to one of the Guilford 4 or Birmingham 6 (I cannot remember which), and brought up the subject of remorse, and he said not to worry about it as it is a middle class thing to make you feel even more guilty. This is the comment that Andrew O'Hagan reported in his article. I would rather he asked do you feel bad about what happened? That would have got a yes, for example, in Erwin James's article, he asked if I had any regrets, I replied yes, killing my landlady. What a lot of people do not understand, is that prison humour is very black, gallows humour. And the first comment from a London gangster in front of an audience who were watching the news report on TV was "You know what they say Hirsty, if you want to get ahead in life...get an axe". Prisoners found it amusing and laughed. Not at the offence, but at the joke. It was funny, I could not be offended at the remark, and I laughed as well. Similarly, when I was in police custody, I made the comment, I bet she's got a bit of an headache. It was wry humour, something to say, inappropriate, admittedly, but it was in response to something the copper had said which permitted a moment of light relief in a tragic case. Whipping myself would not have brought the victim back to life. It was final. Some people read too much into this and miss the main points. When they wheeled a sixteen year old, in a body bag, who had committed suicide, past the breakfast queue, the heavy atmosphere was broken when some wag quipped "Can I have his cornflakes, because he won't be wanting them now?", the tension broke into laughter. It did not lessen the tragedy. It could happen to anybody, it is one of the easiest things to do is kill someone, it is the show of control that is the hardest. I did not kill my landlady because I felt like it. There were deeper psychological and social factors combined with the failure of the Probation Service to do anything about it when I reported that something was going wrong and my head was in bits and I needed to be moved. They ignored the warning signals I was sending. I did not say that I was going to kill her because I did not know at that time that it would happen. They had alternative accommodation, but told me that none was available, it could have been prevented and the change could have benefited me instead I felt trapped and lashed out. It was not her that I was attacking but the situation like in the American film where the actor was stuck in a traffic jam and it went downhill from there.
Verity said: "Well, excuse me if I elbow my way in here, but I was the first one to mention, in tones of revulsion, that Dale was planning to have the chewing gum you can't scrape off the bottom of your shoe on 18 Doughty Street. I mentioned it two days ago before everyone else got in on the act. And then I mentioned it again. You didn't spike the remorseless axe murderer of an old lady's media career alone, PHitch. I'd already got the underpinnings in place when you came in and added some much needed muscle! So sad, really. He was looking forward to his appearance on TV that he mentioned it several times. Oh well, life holds many a bitter disappointment for axe murders who dream of media stardom. Maybe he could go on Big Brother House or Help, I'm a Celbrity". Nasty piece of work. I have more than enough newspaper and magazine articles, radio and TV appearances. I am famous outside of the blogosphere whereas Verity, who? What was different about 18DS is that I have not done internet TV, and Iain had promised to give the prisoners votes case a proper airing on Vox Politix with a panel of guests. It wasn't about me you silly cunt! It was about prisoners human rights. No way would I go on Big Brother even in the unlikely event I was asked, nor on I'm a Celebrity, as I don't watch or like the programmes. My only interest is to push for prisoners rights. I never sought fame, it was the media reporting that did that but I took it on board and kept my feet on the ground. Nor did I envisage that I would make history with the prisoners votes case. That only dawned later when the media kept mentioning how long the legal position had been in place until I came along. The first man since 1870 to progress the issue, that did give me a warm glow inside. I can understand why these small minded people in their small world become envious. They cannot stand it when someone else steps into the spotlight and upstages them. All these grains of sand are worthless and its the nuggets of gold which have value. They are going to be very disappointed very shortly, watch this space...
On Blogger TV, The Chunt brought up the subject of the Wife in the North and her reported £70,000 book deal. Iain was miffed at the size of the advance, and there was a bit of bitchiness. True, when I read that she had a Times connection, and the Times broke the story, there is a whiff of a possible conspiracy. Still, she writes well and that cannot be taken away from her. Unlike some of the cretins who posted on Croydonian relatively recently.
I was looking for Steve Taylor's blog, pigeon something or other, to provide a link on my site, and searched Google for prisonlawinsideout to see if his reference too me was in that place. It wasn't, but I stumbled upon "Stupid criminal of the year" on Croydonian and he mentioned that it was not a reference too me. The twit istanbultory suggested that my blog must be in the running for worst blog (obviously he has not read Rachel North London's post on her blog where she opined that jailhouselawyer has a top blog). Newmania(c), I was surprised to learn is male, as I had wrongly supposed that the bitchy comments came from a female. In any event, he refers to my blog as "Eugene" and it is a reference to something sung by Pink Floyd. It was lost on Croydonian and I am puzzled too. I know that in prison "The Mad Dog of Pudsey" used to call me Crazy Diamond, and this certainly came from the lyrics of Pink Floyd as we used to smoke dope and play their records in Long Lartin Prison. "Peter Hitchens" before he bottled it to the real Peter Hitchens posted this comment "The axe murderer is now barred from guido no doubt our mr dale has done likewise". As usual The Hitch, who is now my prison bitch, was talking shit. I still post on both of those sites. Croydonian replied "He's already got a lifetime - and life means life...- ban here, in advance of any attempt post". So, I put it to the test and posted a comment.
"Croydonian: You're a bore. Bring it on, tosser!". He replied (haughtily) "Mr Hirst, Do not post here again. Ever. My comment makers find you morally reprehensible and even supposing that I did not, that would be sufficient to bar you. Your repeated threats of making recourse to legal action are out of place in the convivial place that is the British political blogosphere, and I would counsel you to research the outcome of Dering v Uris before filing a libel action that will most probably be struck out at the first instance. You are also a solipsistic bore with the characteristic chippiness of the autodidact. If you choose to ignore this, any comments you make including any emanating from your IP address but with different alias will be deleted". So, I caught him out in a lie. I had to laugh out loud at "the convivial place that is the British political blogosphere". What a numpty, hello, anyone in there, it's a jungle, you fucking muppet! When the idiot has the string of legal victories that I have amassed, it might just be possible that I would seek his advice, but doubtful, as I am the number one in the country in this area of expertise. Talk about teaching your grandmother to suck eggs...It's a matter of public record that I am self-taught, that's why I don't need lessons from someone with a little knowledge.
Anonymous said: "I think I have also tripped up his budding media career, I can't believe Dale was thinking of having the fucker on his programme". And, there I was thinking it must have been something I said. It is true that Iain Dale both announced on his blog and on 18DS that he was inviting me on to discuss the prisoners votes case. Iain Dale has not had the common decency to email me and rescind the offer and give his reasons for so doing. I think that it is time that Iain Dale came clean about this whole affair. I have exposed a conspiracy. Yet more sleaze from the Tory Party! Just as well he was not selected. There is already enough corruption in politics without adding to it by someone heavily engaged in a conspiracy. At the very least, I believe that Iain Dale should offer me a public apology for his ungentlemanly conduct. Is this how Iain Dale repays the man for giving him the idea for Blogger TV, which has proved to be the most popular progamme on 18DS? Besides being a prison law consultant, I am also a media consultant (albeit not in the same league as Max Clifford). It just goes to show how ignorant some of these bloggers and posters are. It's Iain Dale's and the viewers loss. I have a very good relationship with the media (not the RedTops), and they have based their prejudices on one article by Andrew O'Hagan. Admittedly, it was not the best article ever written about me. But, I thought the photo was good and use it on my profile on this blog.
Croydonian posted: "Did the Dalemeister pull him? If so, stout work all round". Anonymous replied: "the axe murderer wasn't exactly candid despite his claim) manslaughter can mean you were unlucky to get into a fight and somebody died, could happen to any of us. A bit different from axeing somebodies mum to death because you felt like it and then not express remorse, he should be either dead or at least in prison". On the contrary, I am very candid and believe that honesty is the best policy. This idiot on the other hand, refers to murderer and then manslaughter and gives the vision in his head which does not match the facts. It is a pity that he did not watch the 15 minute Ch4 News item in which Simon Israel went into the circumstances of my case, or listen to the Michael Buerk programme, The Choice on Radio 4, when he spent half an hour on the subject. I am a very literal person, and when as a child I exposed white lies by adults I lost trust in them. I did not know then that this literal approach was down to my Aspergers Syndrome. In the past I have been accused of being too truthful. I don't believe that anybody can be that. However, I have learnt that the truth can sometimes hurt and that some people prefer to tell or hear white lies. And, that I then get accused of saying something inappropriate. I think that we all do that at times, but with Aspergers it is more common.
On the issue of remorse, the first person who opined that I showed no sign of remorse was a police doctor who asked me no questions in relation to the offence and only took intimate samples from my person. People with Aspergers have difficulty with empathy. Its not the same as not expressing remorse. The diminished responsibility, at the time of the offence, meant that I was not in my right mind, that is, mentally off balance. Therefore, full criminal responsibility is not present. I cannot feel guilt for being mentally ill. I handed myself into the police. The Court of Appeal has stated on, at least, two occasions that someone who self reports themselves to the police is a strong indication of remorse. I have seen prisoners cry in the dock, not out of remorse but out of self pity and some people are fooled by this display. One day on the prison exercise yard I was talking to one of the Guilford 4 or Birmingham 6 (I cannot remember which), and brought up the subject of remorse, and he said not to worry about it as it is a middle class thing to make you feel even more guilty. This is the comment that Andrew O'Hagan reported in his article. I would rather he asked do you feel bad about what happened? That would have got a yes, for example, in Erwin James's article, he asked if I had any regrets, I replied yes, killing my landlady. What a lot of people do not understand, is that prison humour is very black, gallows humour. And the first comment from a London gangster in front of an audience who were watching the news report on TV was "You know what they say Hirsty, if you want to get ahead in life...get an axe". Prisoners found it amusing and laughed. Not at the offence, but at the joke. It was funny, I could not be offended at the remark, and I laughed as well. Similarly, when I was in police custody, I made the comment, I bet she's got a bit of an headache. It was wry humour, something to say, inappropriate, admittedly, but it was in response to something the copper had said which permitted a moment of light relief in a tragic case. Whipping myself would not have brought the victim back to life. It was final. Some people read too much into this and miss the main points. When they wheeled a sixteen year old, in a body bag, who had committed suicide, past the breakfast queue, the heavy atmosphere was broken when some wag quipped "Can I have his cornflakes, because he won't be wanting them now?", the tension broke into laughter. It did not lessen the tragedy. It could happen to anybody, it is one of the easiest things to do is kill someone, it is the show of control that is the hardest. I did not kill my landlady because I felt like it. There were deeper psychological and social factors combined with the failure of the Probation Service to do anything about it when I reported that something was going wrong and my head was in bits and I needed to be moved. They ignored the warning signals I was sending. I did not say that I was going to kill her because I did not know at that time that it would happen. They had alternative accommodation, but told me that none was available, it could have been prevented and the change could have benefited me instead I felt trapped and lashed out. It was not her that I was attacking but the situation like in the American film where the actor was stuck in a traffic jam and it went downhill from there.
Verity said: "Well, excuse me if I elbow my way in here, but I was the first one to mention, in tones of revulsion, that Dale was planning to have the chewing gum you can't scrape off the bottom of your shoe on 18 Doughty Street. I mentioned it two days ago before everyone else got in on the act. And then I mentioned it again. You didn't spike the remorseless axe murderer of an old lady's media career alone, PHitch. I'd already got the underpinnings in place when you came in and added some much needed muscle! So sad, really. He was looking forward to his appearance on TV that he mentioned it several times. Oh well, life holds many a bitter disappointment for axe murders who dream of media stardom. Maybe he could go on Big Brother House or Help, I'm a Celbrity". Nasty piece of work. I have more than enough newspaper and magazine articles, radio and TV appearances. I am famous outside of the blogosphere whereas Verity, who? What was different about 18DS is that I have not done internet TV, and Iain had promised to give the prisoners votes case a proper airing on Vox Politix with a panel of guests. It wasn't about me you silly cunt! It was about prisoners human rights. No way would I go on Big Brother even in the unlikely event I was asked, nor on I'm a Celebrity, as I don't watch or like the programmes. My only interest is to push for prisoners rights. I never sought fame, it was the media reporting that did that but I took it on board and kept my feet on the ground. Nor did I envisage that I would make history with the prisoners votes case. That only dawned later when the media kept mentioning how long the legal position had been in place until I came along. The first man since 1870 to progress the issue, that did give me a warm glow inside. I can understand why these small minded people in their small world become envious. They cannot stand it when someone else steps into the spotlight and upstages them. All these grains of sand are worthless and its the nuggets of gold which have value. They are going to be very disappointed very shortly, watch this space...
Iain's Daily Diary - The blog of a car salesman
I make no apologies to those regular viewers of 18Drearyst.com my internet tv station for having the same guests on all the time saying the same boring things. I want to break into main stream television, and my plan of attacking the BBC for its bias has worked and now I get asked to appear on all sorts of TV programmes. I am a bit like a double headed coin, on one side my face appears to the left and on the other it appears to the right.
You might remember that my car got broken into by some druggies who get their supplies from Paul Staines (aka) Guido Fawkes. They cut the roof off my howdy with a chain saw, so I have decided to sell it and have called it a cabriolet. Naturally, I have advertised it under the heading "One careful lady driver".
We found another use for the National Front fridge in the office. Mike Rouse now occupies it and we have buried him under the floorboards.
As you all know I have a zero tolerance to drugs, and once left a party when someone lit up a spliff. However, politics is different and I have no intention of leaving the Conservative Party just because David Cameron is a raging cokehead. The latest opinion poll shows that the Tories have got a substantial lead over Labour, the first time since the Blessed Margaret was evicted from Number Ten. I enjoy being David Davis's comedy scriptwriter, and I believe that I am onto a winner here. There is nothing a megalomaniac likes more than power.
You might remember that my car got broken into by some druggies who get their supplies from Paul Staines (aka) Guido Fawkes. They cut the roof off my howdy with a chain saw, so I have decided to sell it and have called it a cabriolet. Naturally, I have advertised it under the heading "One careful lady driver".
We found another use for the National Front fridge in the office. Mike Rouse now occupies it and we have buried him under the floorboards.
As you all know I have a zero tolerance to drugs, and once left a party when someone lit up a spliff. However, politics is different and I have no intention of leaving the Conservative Party just because David Cameron is a raging cokehead. The latest opinion poll shows that the Tories have got a substantial lead over Labour, the first time since the Blessed Margaret was evicted from Number Ten. I enjoy being David Davis's comedy scriptwriter, and I believe that I am onto a winner here. There is nothing a megalomaniac likes more than power.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Ministry of Justice
It would appear that Pickfords Removals might be needed very soon to move the Prison Service from within the Home Office to the soon to be set up Ministry of Justice. Today the blogger Dizzy Thinks thinks he has discovered the domain name of the website for the new department. I had to phone my mole in Prison Service HQ, today about another matter, and a few snippets of information leaked out. Although, I hasten to add, nothing has been heard officially yet. I suspect that this means that the hand wielding the rubber stamp has not reached the piece of paper for the press release.
A few weeks back, we had discussed the proposal and I was informed that originally it was intended that Charles Falconer would take over the Ministry of Justice. However, it became clear that this would not be the case because of either constitutional reasons or because of some convention. I asked who might head the new department and it was suggested that Hilary Benn MP was a good bet. And John Reid would head the department of Homeland Security. I have known my mole for over 20 years. If nothing was planned he would have said as much. It is not his job to pre-empt any official announcement. He is in the know, and went as far as someone in his position could diplomatically go without treading on the toes of any minister.
A few weeks back, we had discussed the proposal and I was informed that originally it was intended that Charles Falconer would take over the Ministry of Justice. However, it became clear that this would not be the case because of either constitutional reasons or because of some convention. I asked who might head the new department and it was suggested that Hilary Benn MP was a good bet. And John Reid would head the department of Homeland Security. I have known my mole for over 20 years. If nothing was planned he would have said as much. It is not his job to pre-empt any official announcement. He is in the know, and went as far as someone in his position could diplomatically go without treading on the toes of any minister.
Liana called into see me yesterday morning at 9.30, just as I was having breakfast (a bacon butty, cup of tea and a fag), and brought her's and Lasma's and Edite's washing to shove in my washing machine. When she uses the door knocker, she slams it once, and it always makes me jump, and reminds me of the days when prison officers wore steel toecaps on their boots and would crash against the outside of the cell door as they looked through the spyhole. I greeted her with "fucking hell!". She repeated parrot fashion "fucking hell, fucking hell, awhy? awhy?". I was still reeling from the shock, and thought it was a bit early to be disturbed. Even as a child it took me awhile to get the cobwebs of sleep out of my head when I woke up, unless I was going on holiday or it was Christmas Day or some other special occasion. After breakfast we took Rocky for a walk in Pearson Park, and then Liana went home.
Early evening I was in the bath and crash went the door knocker. Liana went straight up to my study and not finding me there came back down again. I told her to get the washing out of the washing machine whilst I finished off. When she came back in, she said, "I go home". I replied jokingly "You want sex?", as I stood bollock naked in the bath. I thought she had gone home but I found her waiting in the lounge. "You still here?", I asked rather stupidly as I could see that she was. "I want sex", she said. "No, I want to talk".
I asked her if she was still writing down the hours that she worked at Poskitts, the idea being that when the contract ends I will assist her to claim the unpaid wages. She assured me that she was. And then said that she was now getting paid £5.35 per hour. But before I could give a sigh of relief, she added that she had not been paid in 3 weeks. She said that she kept asking for the money and Poskitts kept saying later, later. I pushed her further and she said she had paid a deposit for the privilege of working, paid for work boots, paid for transport to and from work. It was beginning to look murkier and murkier. She did not give me the £5 per week she owes the council for council tax.
Besides supplying ASDA, she packed carrots for Netto and the market and some for the Prison Service and some to be fed to horses. I get Rocky's meat unfit for human consumption from a local butcher. Liana said that all the carrots except those destined to be eaten by prisoners were decent quality. What Liana described as rubbish are not fed to horses or thrown away but are instead sold to the Prison Service for human consumption, albeit by prisoners. According to the Prison Rules, prisoners food rations are required to be sufficient in both quality and quantity. I think I will be having a word with the Director General of the H.M.Prison Service, Phil Wheatley, and make him aware not only of the Russian/Latvian Mafia connection to the contract awarded by the Prison Service, but also ask if he is aware that food not deemed fit for animals is being fed to humans, prisoners, whom he has a responsibility to care for.
Early evening I was in the bath and crash went the door knocker. Liana went straight up to my study and not finding me there came back down again. I told her to get the washing out of the washing machine whilst I finished off. When she came back in, she said, "I go home". I replied jokingly "You want sex?", as I stood bollock naked in the bath. I thought she had gone home but I found her waiting in the lounge. "You still here?", I asked rather stupidly as I could see that she was. "I want sex", she said. "No, I want to talk".
I asked her if she was still writing down the hours that she worked at Poskitts, the idea being that when the contract ends I will assist her to claim the unpaid wages. She assured me that she was. And then said that she was now getting paid £5.35 per hour. But before I could give a sigh of relief, she added that she had not been paid in 3 weeks. She said that she kept asking for the money and Poskitts kept saying later, later. I pushed her further and she said she had paid a deposit for the privilege of working, paid for work boots, paid for transport to and from work. It was beginning to look murkier and murkier. She did not give me the £5 per week she owes the council for council tax.
Besides supplying ASDA, she packed carrots for Netto and the market and some for the Prison Service and some to be fed to horses. I get Rocky's meat unfit for human consumption from a local butcher. Liana said that all the carrots except those destined to be eaten by prisoners were decent quality. What Liana described as rubbish are not fed to horses or thrown away but are instead sold to the Prison Service for human consumption, albeit by prisoners. According to the Prison Rules, prisoners food rations are required to be sufficient in both quality and quantity. I think I will be having a word with the Director General of the H.M.Prison Service, Phil Wheatley, and make him aware not only of the Russian/Latvian Mafia connection to the contract awarded by the Prison Service, but also ask if he is aware that food not deemed fit for animals is being fed to humans, prisoners, whom he has a responsibility to care for.
Gingersnaps
I came across this brilliant piece of blogging and reproduce it here in full and supply this link if anyone wants to visit the site and read the comments or see whatever else might interest you from gingersnaps.
On Death Row
With my new job came an entirely new field of work in this journey called my career. I found much satisfaction in being able to minister to patients, families, visitors, and co-workers in my time at Baptist Hospital. Now, I am completely amazed at the opportunity that has been given me to learn more than about a field that I had never dreamed I would be a part of. I am working for an advocacy organization whose goal is to raise public awareness of the flaws in our criminal justice system, namely, in the administration of capital punishment in this state.
I have been reading up on this subject, and am mystified at the poor representation and process of evidence gathering and witness testimony when another life hangs in the balance. This isn’t about the crime the defendant did or did not commit, but the careless manner in which our system chooses who gets the death penalty and who doesn’t and why the death penalty is an option at all.
Disclaimer: I do not pretend to know even the most basic tenants of this subject, as I am only a week into this job and have only begun to research the mission of this organization. I have a lot to learn.
And finally, the entire reason for this post…
Yesterday, I was given the opportunity to go with one of my bosses to visit Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman at the Riverbend Maximum Security Correctional Facility here in Nashville. This is probably hard for some of you to believe, but I had never been to a jail before in my life, much less the state’s maximum security facility where Tennessee’s most notorious criminals reside.
I have to admit that I was a bit excited about going. I wasn’t really nervous, but my anticipation built as we were driving there, because I knew that I was getting to do something that not many get to…and that’s talk one on one with a man who came within hours of dying by lethal injection. A man who experienced the Death Watch.
I’m not sure what I was expecting, but the front area of the place reminded me of where you get your drivers license. Very, um, “state facility built in the 70s” looking. We got signed in, screened, and on our way to the next set of checkpoints. The only thing I was allowed to take was my ID. Not even some cards that we wanted to take to Abu-Ali. Anyway, we went through our second screening area, and then walked outside through the frigid cold to his “pod”. I think I also imagined that I would be walking past a bunch of cells with men beating on the bars and heckling me (like in the movies), but the only time I saw any other inmates was through a wooden fence where they were having their outside time. It sounded like two guys were having an argument–a lot of yelling. I just kept walking–fast–to get over to Abu-Ali’s pod.
The lobby area was very small, with a guard and a sign-in book. I was overwhelmed at the smell of the building. It reminded me of the way that the rest stops along the Florida Turnpike smelled when I was a kid. I don’t know if that is an antiseptic or what, but it wasn’t very pleasant, and took awhile for me to get acclimated to. The guard radioed back to another guard to bring in Abu-Ali, and we sat in a very small room with 3 chairs, and bars on the windows. On the door going back into the area where the inmates live, there was a hole where they had to reach their hands through to get their handcuffs taken off.
So in comes Abu-Ali with no big presentation of the guard taking off cuffs and shackles…just a guy in a white and blue jumpsuit carrying a very large file folder of papers. My boss introduced me to him, and he gently shook my hand. I was taken aback at how soft-spoken and gentle this guy who was supposed to be a hardened criminal was.
The conversation that ensued was fascinating. He talked to me about a little of his life story. Here is an excerpt from the organization’s website:
“Abu-Ali suffered extreme physical, sexual and emotional abuse at the hands of his parents. As a child, Abdur’Rahman and his two siblings were abandoned by their mother. She put the three children in a taxi, drove them to the woods, and left them. The taxi driver later collected the children and turned them over to the state. Abdur’Rahman was repeatedly beaten with a leather strap by his father, who also struck his penis with a baseball bat. He was made to remove his clothes, placed hog-tied in a locked closet, and tethered to a hook with a piece of leather tied around the head of his penis. At an early age, Abdur’Rahman was described by mental health professionals as “highly disturbed,” “very sick,” and in need of commitment. He has been diagnosed as having Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, and Disassociative Disorder. Abdur’Rahman’s brother committed suicide in 1996, and his sister attempted suicide on numerous occasions and was institutionalized repeatedly for mental illness. Her whereabouts are currently unknown.”
Because of his disdain and disgust at anybody who would endanger a child, Abu-Ali had become a sort-of vigilante, attempting to act as a civil “police” in his neighborhood. He and his partners had entered the home of his victim with the intent to scare him away from selling drugs to the kids in that neighborhood, when it all went terribly wrong.
At this point in the conversation, Abu-Ali said something that I think will stick with me my entire life. In talking about what it is like on the streets and in the ghetto neighborhoods he has lived in, he said that with all of the focus our country has put on fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and Iraq, he has witnessed and fought the “Taliban” in his own war zone-like neighborhoods. The evil of this world does not only reside in the Middle East. It is in our own backyards….so why are we putting all of our time and money there and not here where our own are suffering and dying everyday?
Abu-Ali has become a mentor to the younger inmates. He has gotten his Paralegal degree through a mail correspondence course, and has been appointed the counsel between inmates who have gotten themselves into trouble and the guards. He is a very, very spiritual man who talked about how he converted to Islam, but has chosen to study all beliefs so as to have a more universalistic understanding of God. He condemned what the Jihadists are doing, and quoted scripture from the Koran to back his condemnation up. There was so much he talked about that I wish I could have had a tape recorder. I was completely enamoured with this whole conversation, sitting on the edge of my seat the entire time.
Abu-Ali is a poet and an artist. He shared some of his poetry and articles with me. There is actually a newsletter that the inmates write and publish each week, and he gave me one of those to take with me. Some of his art was amazing. With all of the time they have on their hands, I’m sure that the development of any talent is born out of necessity to relieve the boredom. It was pretty cool to see some of his work.
Finally, at the end of our visit he asked if my boss had those cards…the cards weren’t for him, they were for him to send out to people. He said that in his years there, he hadn’t missed one birthday of the 45 or so people he sends one to. He asked that we really try to get those to him so he wouldn’t miss anyone’s birthday. I thought that to be quite interesting. I am good at discerning a snow job…it may take a little time, but I usually can spot a con artist. At the same time, I always try to see the good in people, no matter what the circumstances. This guy seems to have a truly good heart. He seems like somebody who is a perfect candidate for psychological and social rehabilitation.
So why on earth is this guy on Death Row?
I’m not a Death Penalty abolitionist. In fact, I had never given it much of a thought until the opportunity to work in this field was presented to me. After hearing this guy’s background, case history, and overall story, I have come to question what our system is doing exactly. It seems as if as an entire society, the punishment is not fitting the crime. That goes from Elementary School up. From not enough punishment to it being over the top out of proportion.
As we left the prison, I had to just be silent and process the experience. It has taken me until this morning to put it into some very uneloquent words, but it is what it is.
My visit to Death Row has provoked a spiritual awakening inside of me for something that I never had even given much thought to. Jesus visited the prisoners. He was a friend to the indigent. Don’t get me wrong, He taught justice. However, more so He focused on the spirit of the person, and didn’t hold their past against them.
That is the kind of compassion I want.
~ by Ginger on February 17, 2007.
http://gingersnaps.wordpress.com/2007/02/17/on-death-row/
On Death Row
With my new job came an entirely new field of work in this journey called my career. I found much satisfaction in being able to minister to patients, families, visitors, and co-workers in my time at Baptist Hospital. Now, I am completely amazed at the opportunity that has been given me to learn more than about a field that I had never dreamed I would be a part of. I am working for an advocacy organization whose goal is to raise public awareness of the flaws in our criminal justice system, namely, in the administration of capital punishment in this state.
I have been reading up on this subject, and am mystified at the poor representation and process of evidence gathering and witness testimony when another life hangs in the balance. This isn’t about the crime the defendant did or did not commit, but the careless manner in which our system chooses who gets the death penalty and who doesn’t and why the death penalty is an option at all.
Disclaimer: I do not pretend to know even the most basic tenants of this subject, as I am only a week into this job and have only begun to research the mission of this organization. I have a lot to learn.
And finally, the entire reason for this post…
Yesterday, I was given the opportunity to go with one of my bosses to visit Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman at the Riverbend Maximum Security Correctional Facility here in Nashville. This is probably hard for some of you to believe, but I had never been to a jail before in my life, much less the state’s maximum security facility where Tennessee’s most notorious criminals reside.
I have to admit that I was a bit excited about going. I wasn’t really nervous, but my anticipation built as we were driving there, because I knew that I was getting to do something that not many get to…and that’s talk one on one with a man who came within hours of dying by lethal injection. A man who experienced the Death Watch.
I’m not sure what I was expecting, but the front area of the place reminded me of where you get your drivers license. Very, um, “state facility built in the 70s” looking. We got signed in, screened, and on our way to the next set of checkpoints. The only thing I was allowed to take was my ID. Not even some cards that we wanted to take to Abu-Ali. Anyway, we went through our second screening area, and then walked outside through the frigid cold to his “pod”. I think I also imagined that I would be walking past a bunch of cells with men beating on the bars and heckling me (like in the movies), but the only time I saw any other inmates was through a wooden fence where they were having their outside time. It sounded like two guys were having an argument–a lot of yelling. I just kept walking–fast–to get over to Abu-Ali’s pod.
The lobby area was very small, with a guard and a sign-in book. I was overwhelmed at the smell of the building. It reminded me of the way that the rest stops along the Florida Turnpike smelled when I was a kid. I don’t know if that is an antiseptic or what, but it wasn’t very pleasant, and took awhile for me to get acclimated to. The guard radioed back to another guard to bring in Abu-Ali, and we sat in a very small room with 3 chairs, and bars on the windows. On the door going back into the area where the inmates live, there was a hole where they had to reach their hands through to get their handcuffs taken off.
So in comes Abu-Ali with no big presentation of the guard taking off cuffs and shackles…just a guy in a white and blue jumpsuit carrying a very large file folder of papers. My boss introduced me to him, and he gently shook my hand. I was taken aback at how soft-spoken and gentle this guy who was supposed to be a hardened criminal was.
The conversation that ensued was fascinating. He talked to me about a little of his life story. Here is an excerpt from the organization’s website:
“Abu-Ali suffered extreme physical, sexual and emotional abuse at the hands of his parents. As a child, Abdur’Rahman and his two siblings were abandoned by their mother. She put the three children in a taxi, drove them to the woods, and left them. The taxi driver later collected the children and turned them over to the state. Abdur’Rahman was repeatedly beaten with a leather strap by his father, who also struck his penis with a baseball bat. He was made to remove his clothes, placed hog-tied in a locked closet, and tethered to a hook with a piece of leather tied around the head of his penis. At an early age, Abdur’Rahman was described by mental health professionals as “highly disturbed,” “very sick,” and in need of commitment. He has been diagnosed as having Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, and Disassociative Disorder. Abdur’Rahman’s brother committed suicide in 1996, and his sister attempted suicide on numerous occasions and was institutionalized repeatedly for mental illness. Her whereabouts are currently unknown.”
Because of his disdain and disgust at anybody who would endanger a child, Abu-Ali had become a sort-of vigilante, attempting to act as a civil “police” in his neighborhood. He and his partners had entered the home of his victim with the intent to scare him away from selling drugs to the kids in that neighborhood, when it all went terribly wrong.
At this point in the conversation, Abu-Ali said something that I think will stick with me my entire life. In talking about what it is like on the streets and in the ghetto neighborhoods he has lived in, he said that with all of the focus our country has put on fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and Iraq, he has witnessed and fought the “Taliban” in his own war zone-like neighborhoods. The evil of this world does not only reside in the Middle East. It is in our own backyards….so why are we putting all of our time and money there and not here where our own are suffering and dying everyday?
Abu-Ali has become a mentor to the younger inmates. He has gotten his Paralegal degree through a mail correspondence course, and has been appointed the counsel between inmates who have gotten themselves into trouble and the guards. He is a very, very spiritual man who talked about how he converted to Islam, but has chosen to study all beliefs so as to have a more universalistic understanding of God. He condemned what the Jihadists are doing, and quoted scripture from the Koran to back his condemnation up. There was so much he talked about that I wish I could have had a tape recorder. I was completely enamoured with this whole conversation, sitting on the edge of my seat the entire time.
Abu-Ali is a poet and an artist. He shared some of his poetry and articles with me. There is actually a newsletter that the inmates write and publish each week, and he gave me one of those to take with me. Some of his art was amazing. With all of the time they have on their hands, I’m sure that the development of any talent is born out of necessity to relieve the boredom. It was pretty cool to see some of his work.
Finally, at the end of our visit he asked if my boss had those cards…the cards weren’t for him, they were for him to send out to people. He said that in his years there, he hadn’t missed one birthday of the 45 or so people he sends one to. He asked that we really try to get those to him so he wouldn’t miss anyone’s birthday. I thought that to be quite interesting. I am good at discerning a snow job…it may take a little time, but I usually can spot a con artist. At the same time, I always try to see the good in people, no matter what the circumstances. This guy seems to have a truly good heart. He seems like somebody who is a perfect candidate for psychological and social rehabilitation.
So why on earth is this guy on Death Row?
I’m not a Death Penalty abolitionist. In fact, I had never given it much of a thought until the opportunity to work in this field was presented to me. After hearing this guy’s background, case history, and overall story, I have come to question what our system is doing exactly. It seems as if as an entire society, the punishment is not fitting the crime. That goes from Elementary School up. From not enough punishment to it being over the top out of proportion.
As we left the prison, I had to just be silent and process the experience. It has taken me until this morning to put it into some very uneloquent words, but it is what it is.
My visit to Death Row has provoked a spiritual awakening inside of me for something that I never had even given much thought to. Jesus visited the prisoners. He was a friend to the indigent. Don’t get me wrong, He taught justice. However, more so He focused on the spirit of the person, and didn’t hold their past against them.
That is the kind of compassion I want.
~ by Ginger on February 17, 2007.
http://gingersnaps.wordpress.com/2007/02/17/on-death-row/
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Mr Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, as I understand it, is searching for his legacy. Putting Iraq aside, might I suggest that he will find it in the "£350m black hole in new prison plan" (Alan Travis, Guardian, 17 February 2007)? In particular, in the prison numbers which have risen from 60,000 in 1997 to the present 80,000. Juliet Lyon, Director of the Prison Reform Trust, claims that the government is turning the country into a penal colony. And, its going to get worse before it gets better because reoffending rates are at a record level.
I have no sympathy for John Reid, the Home Secretary, for the present prison crisis some of which he is to blame for creating himself. In particular, announcing that he intended to create 8,000 extra prison places, at a cost of £44,000 per prisoner per year, that's £352m annually. This is on top of the £1.7bn needed to build the prisons. One of the problems is that John Reid made his announcement before asking Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, whether he could have the money to extend his empire. Brown refused on the ground that he has frozen the Home Office budget for 3 years. The cost of Tony Blair's private war with Iraq and the cost of waging a war on a non-existent terror has left a large hole in the Chancellor's pocket. Reid has been informed that he must meet the costs of these prison places by making cuts elsewhere, for example, in the budgets for the police, probation and immigration.
It is intended that the £1.7bn will be raised from the private sector. There is something distasteful about making profits from imprisonment. Those lobbying for more prison places and a larger prison population and longer sentences are those who stand to profit from the English prison business. The public are not aware that they are paying for two prison systems running in parallel, the public and the private sector. There should only be one penal system. And, surely commonsense suggests that the less people sent to prison the better it is for society? Too many criminal laws and too many prisons are not about law and order. You cannot build yourself out of this crisis, only dig a deeper hole. The answer is to embark on a policy of reductionism.
I have no sympathy for John Reid, the Home Secretary, for the present prison crisis some of which he is to blame for creating himself. In particular, announcing that he intended to create 8,000 extra prison places, at a cost of £44,000 per prisoner per year, that's £352m annually. This is on top of the £1.7bn needed to build the prisons. One of the problems is that John Reid made his announcement before asking Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, whether he could have the money to extend his empire. Brown refused on the ground that he has frozen the Home Office budget for 3 years. The cost of Tony Blair's private war with Iraq and the cost of waging a war on a non-existent terror has left a large hole in the Chancellor's pocket. Reid has been informed that he must meet the costs of these prison places by making cuts elsewhere, for example, in the budgets for the police, probation and immigration.
It is intended that the £1.7bn will be raised from the private sector. There is something distasteful about making profits from imprisonment. Those lobbying for more prison places and a larger prison population and longer sentences are those who stand to profit from the English prison business. The public are not aware that they are paying for two prison systems running in parallel, the public and the private sector. There should only be one penal system. And, surely commonsense suggests that the less people sent to prison the better it is for society? Too many criminal laws and too many prisons are not about law and order. You cannot build yourself out of this crisis, only dig a deeper hole. The answer is to embark on a policy of reductionism.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Paul Staines (aka) Guido Fawkes sue me and see if I care...
Paul Staines (aka) Guido Fawkes sue me and see if I care...
From the blog Paul Staines is a cunt. Hat-tip to the blog's author Guido's executioner.
mercredi 14 février 2007
Tory student leader in ‘ racist ‘ party link / Paul Delarie-Staines of FCS attempts to form pact with British National Party in Hull
The Guardian 31 May 1986
Tory student leader in ‘ racist ‘ party link / Paul Delarie-Staines of FCS attempts to form pact with British National Party in Hull
By David Rose
A leader of the Federation of Conservative Students wrote to an organiser of the British National Party proposing joint ‘direct action’ to disrupt the meetings of leftwing students. Secrecy, he emphasised, was essential: ‘The Reds would simply go wild if they got to hear of a BNP-FCS link. I would personally be in danger of being expelled from the Conservative Party.’
The author of the letter is Mr Paul Delarie-Staines, the chairman of the federation’s 50-strong branch at the Humberside college of Higher Education. Mr Delarie-Staines, who is in his first year of a degree course in business information studies, wrote on May 22 to Mr Ian Walker, a BNP organiser in Hull.
He was, he said, against several of the aims of the BNP, which campaigns for the repatriation of black citizens. Several of its members have been convicted of offences under the Race Relations Act, and others for crimes of violence against ethnic minorities. Its leader, Mr John Tyndall, is a former chairman of the National Front.
Mr Delarie-Staines said he did not share the BNP view on immigration: as a member of the ‘libertarian’ faction of the FCS he advocated the free movement of labour, albeit with the caveat that ‘you come here to work - or starve. ‘
He went on: ‘I share a lot of your objectives.‘ These included a return to leadership and statesmanship, the abolition of the welfare state, and ‘the elimination of Communism in Britain - the mass media, the trade unions, and the schoolroom. ‘
Mr Delaire-Staines continued: ‘Nevertheless, even though we have our differences, I know a lot of BNP people at college do support the FCS (some are members of the FCS). I can certainly envisage some degree of cooperation.
‘For instance, we are moving away from just the normal political debate and towards more direct action - anti-Communist slogans on bridges, disrupting the leftist meetings by posing as leftists and then causing trouble, and also convincing individual leftists of the error of their ways.
‘Perhaps members of the BNP would care to join us in our anti-leftist activities. We can arrange a meeting to discuss possible joint future activities. ‘
Other examples of Mr Delaire-Staines work reached the Guardian, including a number of songs. One, entitled FCS Bootboys, reads: ‘Gas them all, gas them all, the Tribune group trendies and all. Crush Wedgwood Benn and make glue from his bones, Burn the broad left in their middle class homes.
‘Yes we’re saying goodbye to the Left, as safe in their graveyards they rest. ‘Cos they’ll get no further, we’ll stop with murder, the bootboys of FCS. ‘
In a letter to a friend, Mr Delaire-Staines said that he had been on a ‘community arts course - well. not exactly community arts, more spraypainting a bridge at 3am. Quite good fun really, ducking out of sight of passing police cars’
Mr Delaire-Staines told the Guardian that he had not meant violence by direct action at leftist meetings, only ‘causing as much noise as possible’. He said that he had tried to forge links with the BNP because ‘we share their anti-Communist view’.
He added: ‘They’re not far-right. They’re just racists, they believe in one colour. ‘
Mr John Barrow, the national chairman of FCS and a Lambeth councillor, said that Mr Delaire-Staines was ‘a bit silly. I wouldn’t hold it against him. I’m sure he’ll grow out of it.’ After hearing extracts from the letter to the BNP he added. ‘He’s absolutely right that he’s in danger of being thrown out of the Conservative Party.’
Mr James Goodsman, the Conservative Central Office official responsible for the FCS, said: ‘If the evidence comes my way I will certainly look into it.
From the blog Paul Staines is a cunt. Hat-tip to the blog's author Guido's executioner.
mercredi 14 février 2007
Tory student leader in ‘ racist ‘ party link / Paul Delarie-Staines of FCS attempts to form pact with British National Party in Hull
The Guardian 31 May 1986
Tory student leader in ‘ racist ‘ party link / Paul Delarie-Staines of FCS attempts to form pact with British National Party in Hull
By David Rose
A leader of the Federation of Conservative Students wrote to an organiser of the British National Party proposing joint ‘direct action’ to disrupt the meetings of leftwing students. Secrecy, he emphasised, was essential: ‘The Reds would simply go wild if they got to hear of a BNP-FCS link. I would personally be in danger of being expelled from the Conservative Party.’
The author of the letter is Mr Paul Delarie-Staines, the chairman of the federation’s 50-strong branch at the Humberside college of Higher Education. Mr Delarie-Staines, who is in his first year of a degree course in business information studies, wrote on May 22 to Mr Ian Walker, a BNP organiser in Hull.
He was, he said, against several of the aims of the BNP, which campaigns for the repatriation of black citizens. Several of its members have been convicted of offences under the Race Relations Act, and others for crimes of violence against ethnic minorities. Its leader, Mr John Tyndall, is a former chairman of the National Front.
Mr Delarie-Staines said he did not share the BNP view on immigration: as a member of the ‘libertarian’ faction of the FCS he advocated the free movement of labour, albeit with the caveat that ‘you come here to work - or starve. ‘
He went on: ‘I share a lot of your objectives.‘ These included a return to leadership and statesmanship, the abolition of the welfare state, and ‘the elimination of Communism in Britain - the mass media, the trade unions, and the schoolroom. ‘
Mr Delaire-Staines continued: ‘Nevertheless, even though we have our differences, I know a lot of BNP people at college do support the FCS (some are members of the FCS). I can certainly envisage some degree of cooperation.
‘For instance, we are moving away from just the normal political debate and towards more direct action - anti-Communist slogans on bridges, disrupting the leftist meetings by posing as leftists and then causing trouble, and also convincing individual leftists of the error of their ways.
‘Perhaps members of the BNP would care to join us in our anti-leftist activities. We can arrange a meeting to discuss possible joint future activities. ‘
Other examples of Mr Delaire-Staines work reached the Guardian, including a number of songs. One, entitled FCS Bootboys, reads: ‘Gas them all, gas them all, the Tribune group trendies and all. Crush Wedgwood Benn and make glue from his bones, Burn the broad left in their middle class homes.
‘Yes we’re saying goodbye to the Left, as safe in their graveyards they rest. ‘Cos they’ll get no further, we’ll stop with murder, the bootboys of FCS. ‘
In a letter to a friend, Mr Delaire-Staines said that he had been on a ‘community arts course - well. not exactly community arts, more spraypainting a bridge at 3am. Quite good fun really, ducking out of sight of passing police cars’
Mr Delaire-Staines told the Guardian that he had not meant violence by direct action at leftist meetings, only ‘causing as much noise as possible’. He said that he had tried to forge links with the BNP because ‘we share their anti-Communist view’.
He added: ‘They’re not far-right. They’re just racists, they believe in one colour. ‘
Mr John Barrow, the national chairman of FCS and a Lambeth councillor, said that Mr Delaire-Staines was ‘a bit silly. I wouldn’t hold it against him. I’m sure he’ll grow out of it.’ After hearing extracts from the letter to the BNP he added. ‘He’s absolutely right that he’s in danger of being thrown out of the Conservative Party.’
Mr James Goodsman, the Conservative Central Office official responsible for the FCS, said: ‘If the evidence comes my way I will certainly look into it.
Friday, February 02, 2007
I have often wondered how Supermarkets can price their products so cheaply. Yesterday I came across a clue. The carrots that Liana packs for Poskitts via Deepmist Ltd employment agency, and for which she is paid £4.00 per hour, £1.35 per hour below the National Minimum Wage, are destined for the shelves of ASDA. It would be nice of ASDA to tell its customers why that's ASDA price!
UPDATE (Sunday): I think it was brazen of the Russian/Latvian Mafia to publish the warning too me (on Draugiem.lv)to remain silent on this affair, especially as it was accompanied by a couple of photos of those issuing the threat. It has strengthened my resolve to expose this further...
UPDATE (Sunday): I think it was brazen of the Russian/Latvian Mafia to publish the warning too me (on Draugiem.lv)to remain silent on this affair, especially as it was accompanied by a couple of photos of those issuing the threat. It has strengthened my resolve to expose this further...
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Just before Christmas I put out my wheelie bin the night before the morning the council send a lorry to collect the waste. The next day I went about my business. When I checked the emptied bins, mine was missing. So, I telephoned the council to report this absence and inquired whether it could have ended up in the back of the wagon along with the waste. I reasoned that nobody would steal a full wheelie bin. Several days went by before the council phoned me back and conceded that my wheelie bin had mistakenly ended up in the back of the wagon and that they would order me another one. When the new one arrived, I painted my address on this like I had done with the previous one. I missed the first collection day after Christmas, but put my wheelie bin out in time for the second week. I couldn't believe that it had gone missing the second time! I phoned the council who said that I would have to pay for a replacement. I refused to do this on the ground that it is not my fault if my wheelie bin keeps doing a disappearing act. The following week, I am taking my dog for a walk and lo and behold amongst the emptied bins I see my first wheelie bin. I recognised my writing where I had painted the house number, even though the remainder of it had been rubbed off. I reclaimed my wheelie bin, and repainted the missing address. This week I keep an eye out, and when the dustbin men had emptied my wheelie bin I rushed straight out and collected it. A little later, I go out to take the dog for a walk and there before me is my second wheelie bin still with my address painted upon it and belatedly being wheeled out of the back of the house that backs onto the front of my house. I confronted the tenant that he was in possession of a wheelie bin with my address painted upon it. His solution was to offer to scrape my address off the wheelie bin as if that was the problem! I got the impression that he has been released from a mental hospital and that he is now being cared for in the community.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
This just in from BBC News Scotland.
Court rules on prison voting ban
Prisoners are currently banned from voting
Legal action is being considered which could stop the Scottish Parliament election from taking place because prisoners are excluded from voting.
It follows a ruling at the Court of Session in Edinburgh that the elections would be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The UK Government had set up a consultation process following a European Court ruling in 2005.
But legislation would not be introduced before Scotland's elections in May.
It is understood that a number of prisoners are already undertaking legal action to prevent the poll from taking place.
Not compliant
Three judges at Scotland's supreme civil court issued a declaration that the blanket ban on convicted prisoners voting was incompatible with their human rights.
A former prisoner, who was denied the right to vote in the last elections for the Holyrood parliament, took his case to the Registration Appeal Court in Edinburgh.
Lord Abernethy, who heard the appeal with Lord Nimmo Smith and Lord Emslie, said the May elections would take place in a way which was not compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The judges said they had come to the view that they "should make a formal declaration of incompatibility to that effect".
It is accepted by the government that there will be no amending legislation before the Scottish parliamentary election in May 2007
Lord Abernethy
The appeal arose after a serving prisoner, William Smith, had his application to be included on the electoral roll in 2003 rejected.
Lord Abernethy said Mr Smith's case was "of far-reaching importance".
"It is accepted by the government that there will be no amending legislation before the Scottish parliamentary election in May 2007," he said.
"We fully understand why the Government does not at this stage wish to rush forward with amending legislation but the fact remains that the Scottish parliamentary election in May 2007 will take place in a manner which is not Convention-compliant."
In 2005 a prisoner in England, John Hirst, who was serving life for manslaughter, won a decision over voting rights at the European Court of Human Rights.
Court rules on prison voting ban
Prisoners are currently banned from voting
Legal action is being considered which could stop the Scottish Parliament election from taking place because prisoners are excluded from voting.
It follows a ruling at the Court of Session in Edinburgh that the elections would be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The UK Government had set up a consultation process following a European Court ruling in 2005.
But legislation would not be introduced before Scotland's elections in May.
It is understood that a number of prisoners are already undertaking legal action to prevent the poll from taking place.
Not compliant
Three judges at Scotland's supreme civil court issued a declaration that the blanket ban on convicted prisoners voting was incompatible with their human rights.
A former prisoner, who was denied the right to vote in the last elections for the Holyrood parliament, took his case to the Registration Appeal Court in Edinburgh.
Lord Abernethy, who heard the appeal with Lord Nimmo Smith and Lord Emslie, said the May elections would take place in a way which was not compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The judges said they had come to the view that they "should make a formal declaration of incompatibility to that effect".
It is accepted by the government that there will be no amending legislation before the Scottish parliamentary election in May 2007
Lord Abernethy
The appeal arose after a serving prisoner, William Smith, had his application to be included on the electoral roll in 2003 rejected.
Lord Abernethy said Mr Smith's case was "of far-reaching importance".
"It is accepted by the government that there will be no amending legislation before the Scottish parliamentary election in May 2007," he said.
"We fully understand why the Government does not at this stage wish to rush forward with amending legislation but the fact remains that the Scottish parliamentary election in May 2007 will take place in a manner which is not Convention-compliant."
In 2005 a prisoner in England, John Hirst, who was serving life for manslaughter, won a decision over voting rights at the European Court of Human Rights.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
I was disturbed in more ways than one last night, when at 8.45 Liana slammed the door knocker as I was at my computer waiting for Blogger TV to come on at 9 on 18doughtystreet.com the internet TV station. She brought me a bag of carrots from the food factory where she is now working. I told her they looked like giant dildos. I am not sure that she understood. She said she had been working 13 hours with only 1 hour for lunch. And that she is working 6 days a week, and refused to work 7 days when she was asked to. That's a long day taking into account travelling time etc. And having to pay for the transport to and from work. Then she dropped the bombshell, that she was only being paid £4 per hour! That's at least £1.35 below the National Minimum Wage. She just said by way of explanation, "Russian Mafia". I would like to pursue this abuse, but it is hard enough for her to get work in the first place and there is a danger that if I chased this matter up she would find herself out of work again and unable to claim any State benefit. The irony is that we live in Hull where William Wilberforce the anti-slavery campaigner lived. It appears that nothing has really changed...
Monday, January 22, 2007
The Daily Telegraph is running an E-Poll, is John Reid 'fit for purpose'? Yes 19%, No 81%. This result does not reflect the public confidence in the system that John Reid was hoping to achieve. Over the weekend in the Sunday Telegraph, John Reid announced that he was proposing to reorganise the Home Office. It is planned to have a department for Homeland Security which John Reid is keen to run, and a new department which is to become the Ministry for Justice. It was originally planned for Lord Falconer to run this department. However, it transpires that such a department would require accountability which only a MP can provide, and not someone from the House of Lords. Therefore, who is likely to head this new department from the House of Commons? One thing for certain is that it won't be Hilary Clinton, for obvious reasons. Nor will it be Anthony Wedgewood Benn, again for obvious reasons. Could it just be that a combination of these two might just be a marriage made in heaven for John Reid? I have been advised to: "Watch the news carefully over the next few days to test your cynicism levels". Why don't you do the same?
Monday, January 15, 2007
"Blair wants 'super-Asbos' for violent thugs" is the headline of David Cracknell's article in The Sunday Times, (14 January 2007). It is irresponsible of this "Political Editor", and The Sunday Times, to print such a headline which is clearly untruthful. This becomes apparent upon reading the first paragraph: "Tony Blair is to mount a final assault on Britain's thug culture by introducing restrictions that will curb potential yobs' movements even before they have committed an offence".
I suspect that there is no such thing as a "Britain's thug culture". Even if some smart arsed social scientist proves me wrong in this respect, there is no justification for the State to infringe the civil liberties of innocent youths by placing restrictions on their freedom of movement. There is no such thing as a "potential yob", one either is or is not a yob. It is pure witchdoctory to predict who may offend in the future. The principle of innocent until proven guilty should not be removed nor should the principle be stood on its head. If someone has not committed an offence, then they are innocent and should be allowed to go about their law-abiding business unmolested by State interference.
It is quite frightening that Tony Blair is considering attempting to use the civil courts to impose Violent Offender Orders (VOOs), where the standard of proof is lower than under the criminal law needed for the criminal courts, and yet it is planned to make it a criminal offence to breach one of these VOOs imposed upon an innocent youth and the penalty could be 5 years in prison for not having committed any criminal offence. Our jails are already overcrowded with the guilty, adding to this 80,000 plus with how many innocents? This is plain madness. Tony Blair and John Reid should be locked up in a mental hospital before they do any more damage.
I suspect that there is no such thing as a "Britain's thug culture". Even if some smart arsed social scientist proves me wrong in this respect, there is no justification for the State to infringe the civil liberties of innocent youths by placing restrictions on their freedom of movement. There is no such thing as a "potential yob", one either is or is not a yob. It is pure witchdoctory to predict who may offend in the future. The principle of innocent until proven guilty should not be removed nor should the principle be stood on its head. If someone has not committed an offence, then they are innocent and should be allowed to go about their law-abiding business unmolested by State interference.
It is quite frightening that Tony Blair is considering attempting to use the civil courts to impose Violent Offender Orders (VOOs), where the standard of proof is lower than under the criminal law needed for the criminal courts, and yet it is planned to make it a criminal offence to breach one of these VOOs imposed upon an innocent youth and the penalty could be 5 years in prison for not having committed any criminal offence. Our jails are already overcrowded with the guilty, adding to this 80,000 plus with how many innocents? This is plain madness. Tony Blair and John Reid should be locked up in a mental hospital before they do any more damage.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
On Wednesday 10th January 2007, it was a busy day for me. At 9am, I did a Radio 5 Live interview for an hour, on the Grand Chamber hearing of Dickson v. The United Kingdom (app.no. 44362/04), in which a convicted murderer claimed that it was a breach of his human rights under Article 8 and Article 12 of the Convention, for the State to refuse access to artificial insemination facilities.
Then at 1.45pm, I was in the magistrates court in Hull, acting as a "McKenzie Friend", for my Latvian friend, Liana, who had been prosecuted for non-payment of council tax. It is strict liability, it is no defence to be destitute. As Latvia is one of the A8 States, migrants are not entitled to any State benefits unless they have worked for 12 months without a break. I think that it is unfair to expect everyone who comes over here from another European State is automatically going to get a job and stay in that job for the required period. I feel that there should be a safety net for the less fortunate. Although the magistrates granted the council a liability order against Liana, it was not for the full amount claimed by the council, nor did the magistrates grant the council and order for £65 costs against Liana. As Liana will only be liable for between £40-50 in council tax, it cost the council using taxpayers money, at least £15 more than the sum claimed to claim this amount. Talk about a waste of money!
At 6.20pm, I did another radio interview on the artificial insemination case, this time it was for Radio London.
Sunday morning at 9 'O Clock, I have another interview with Radio Birmingham. I would have preferred to stay in bed...
Then at 1.45pm, I was in the magistrates court in Hull, acting as a "McKenzie Friend", for my Latvian friend, Liana, who had been prosecuted for non-payment of council tax. It is strict liability, it is no defence to be destitute. As Latvia is one of the A8 States, migrants are not entitled to any State benefits unless they have worked for 12 months without a break. I think that it is unfair to expect everyone who comes over here from another European State is automatically going to get a job and stay in that job for the required period. I feel that there should be a safety net for the less fortunate. Although the magistrates granted the council a liability order against Liana, it was not for the full amount claimed by the council, nor did the magistrates grant the council and order for £65 costs against Liana. As Liana will only be liable for between £40-50 in council tax, it cost the council using taxpayers money, at least £15 more than the sum claimed to claim this amount. Talk about a waste of money!
At 6.20pm, I did another radio interview on the artificial insemination case, this time it was for Radio London.
Sunday morning at 9 'O Clock, I have another interview with Radio Birmingham. I would have preferred to stay in bed...
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Rachel North London, whom I have a lot of time for and respect, highlighted on her blog an issue that is close to my heart. And that issue is bullying on the internet. Bullying in any form is totally unacceptable behaviour. It ironic that last night Rachel appeared on 18doughtystreet.com, the internet TV station, hosted by Iain Dale, to discuss the issue of internet bullying, when Iain Dale allows this type of thing to go on his blog Iain Dale's Diary. I thought it was irresponsible of Iain Dale to try to shrug it off as having nothing to do with him, on the ground that he is ignorant of the law on this issue. However, the legal maxim applies "ignorance of the law is no excuse". He is both the author and publisher of his blog, and is therefore legally liable for its content. He has adopted the its his blog he can do what he likes with it stance. He can as long as it is within the constraints of the law. Nobody is above the law not even Iain Dale. His attitude reminds me of some prison governors and the Home Secretary who believe that they are law unto themselves until challenged in the courts and judges tell them otherwise. But he is not alone with this couldn't care less attitude, Guido Fawkes behaves in a similar vein. Perhaps there should be a test case in the courts so that blog authors are taught the limits of acceptable behaviour on the internet?
I note that on Donal Blaney's blog that he does not allow anonymous posters. I think that this is a good idea. But it is not just the anonymous posters who post malicious and harrassing and libellous communications, there are the likes of "peter hitchens" and "verity" who are particularly bad examples of good conduct on the blogs. They feel that they are safe, however, it is not called the long arm of the law for nothing.
I advocate freedom of speech which is not an absolute right. There is a saying in prison that a few bad examples spoil it for the many. And this appears to be true of the blogosphere. If there is not going to be self regulation, then it should be for Parliament and/or the courts to regulate. Parliament has passed the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997, and the Malicious Communications Act 1988. Perhaps, they should be invoked to see if they are sufficient to stem this growing nuisance?
I note that on Donal Blaney's blog that he does not allow anonymous posters. I think that this is a good idea. But it is not just the anonymous posters who post malicious and harrassing and libellous communications, there are the likes of "peter hitchens" and "verity" who are particularly bad examples of good conduct on the blogs. They feel that they are safe, however, it is not called the long arm of the law for nothing.
I advocate freedom of speech which is not an absolute right. There is a saying in prison that a few bad examples spoil it for the many. And this appears to be true of the blogosphere. If there is not going to be self regulation, then it should be for Parliament and/or the courts to regulate. Parliament has passed the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997, and the Malicious Communications Act 1988. Perhaps, they should be invoked to see if they are sufficient to stem this growing nuisance?
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Shit or bust...
Shit or bust...
I remember the day Phil Wheatley, the then Deputy Governor of H.M.Prison Gartree, walking into the Tailors Shop and as Tip Guilfoyle distracted the Chief Officer, Jimmy Stevens went and put a bucket of shit and piss that the IRA had supplied over Phil Wheatley's head and patted it down for good measure. The alarm bell rang and the Heavy Mob ran into the shop and for a split second I could see that they did not know whether to laugh or cry as the Deputy Governor tried to pull turds out of his ginger beard.
Phil Wheatley's beard has gone grey now and he is the Director General of H.M.Prison Service. That he rose through the ranks did not surprise me. When I asked him at Hull Prison, where he was the Governor, why he had joined the service, he replied "power". He's a minature meglomaniac. He is also a good friend of mine. Once he told me that I was too truthful for my own good. I disagree with him, but I know what he meant. Some people do not like the truth. I found he would not try to defend the indefensible. He said he preferred to apologise and move on and try and see that the same mistake was not made again.
The Prison Service is very inward looking, it does not take kindly to criticism, and gets very embarrassed very easily. It is a shame that Phil Wheatley is getting a hard ride at the moment from the media. The National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO), is pissed off that John Reid intends to get rid of some public sector probation officers and replace them with some from the private sector. Therefore it has decided to embarrass the Prison Service. First it attacked the amount of lifers and rapists who go to open prisons, now it is attacking the amount who abscond from open prisons. How many recalls do the probation officers instigate where the Parole Board has to release them again because the probation service has cocked it up?
It does appear as though Phil Wheatley is in the shit again. Instead of from the head down, this time it is from the feet up. What is interesting from my point of view, is that NAPO is using the same tactics employed by the IRA.
I remember the day Phil Wheatley, the then Deputy Governor of H.M.Prison Gartree, walking into the Tailors Shop and as Tip Guilfoyle distracted the Chief Officer, Jimmy Stevens went and put a bucket of shit and piss that the IRA had supplied over Phil Wheatley's head and patted it down for good measure. The alarm bell rang and the Heavy Mob ran into the shop and for a split second I could see that they did not know whether to laugh or cry as the Deputy Governor tried to pull turds out of his ginger beard.
Phil Wheatley's beard has gone grey now and he is the Director General of H.M.Prison Service. That he rose through the ranks did not surprise me. When I asked him at Hull Prison, where he was the Governor, why he had joined the service, he replied "power". He's a minature meglomaniac. He is also a good friend of mine. Once he told me that I was too truthful for my own good. I disagree with him, but I know what he meant. Some people do not like the truth. I found he would not try to defend the indefensible. He said he preferred to apologise and move on and try and see that the same mistake was not made again.
The Prison Service is very inward looking, it does not take kindly to criticism, and gets very embarrassed very easily. It is a shame that Phil Wheatley is getting a hard ride at the moment from the media. The National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO), is pissed off that John Reid intends to get rid of some public sector probation officers and replace them with some from the private sector. Therefore it has decided to embarrass the Prison Service. First it attacked the amount of lifers and rapists who go to open prisons, now it is attacking the amount who abscond from open prisons. How many recalls do the probation officers instigate where the Parole Board has to release them again because the probation service has cocked it up?
It does appear as though Phil Wheatley is in the shit again. Instead of from the head down, this time it is from the feet up. What is interesting from my point of view, is that NAPO is using the same tactics employed by the IRA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)