A question which has been bugging me, and I would like the answer to, is What Price Levy? Today in the The Sunday Times it is announced that we have reached the end game in what Tony Blair describes as "this ghastly business". This may be the case, but it is by no means certain that it is drawing to a close. Who is refereeing this match? It appears that it keeps going into extra time. One of the key players, Michael Levy, keeps shouting "foul". Firstly, he alleges that neither the Red Team Captain, Tony Blair, nor the rest of the team, appreciate his skills. What is he looking for? What would satisfy him? I would like to hear what his price is. Secondly, he claims that the crowd are booing him, and being racist, calling him a jew. As we go into half-time, the Boys in Blue are tight lipped about the draw, and Michael Levy is outside the changing room unable to gain access to the huddle going on inside. Tony Blair strums on his guitar, and Michael Levy is fuming when he hears Tony Blair sing, "I hear you knocking, but you can't come in".
In the 1970's, I met the Krays accountant, and part-time chauffeur, Leslie Payne, in Lewes Prison. He received a light sentence by doing a deal with the police. Will any of Tony's players cut and run? Michael Levy is feeling the cold outside, the weather has turned frosty. Will the Blue Team invite him in and offer him a sweet cup of tea and a cigarette? This show of warmth tends to have the effect of encouraging people to pour the hearts out. There are examples in America where a crime boss gets immunity from prosecution if he fingered enough of the other key players, and a bonus if the capo di tutti was brought to justice. The Boys in Blue favour the classic military pincer movement, it is squeezing quite a few political balls. This is not a level playing field, and the Boys in Blue have got a lot of wind against them. They are getting fed up of the dirty tactics from the Red Team, who are considering taking their ball home and not playing anymore. The Boys in Blue have one trick left up their sleeve, that is, appealing to the crowd for their verdict. From the Red Team's changing room comes another song, "There's a whole lot of shaking going on...".
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
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Attorney General, Peter Goldsmith, puts loyalty to Labour before the law.
Peter Goldsmith, the Attorney General, has made it plain to Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, that he will always put loyalty to Labour before the law. And today in the Sunday Telegraph, he writes the opposite, that he will always put law before loyalty to Labour. He admits that he made the decisions to seek injunctions against the BBC and The Guardian, but claims that he did so at the request of the Metropolitan Police. But, no evidence has so far emerged from Assistant Commissioner Yates' Whine Lodge to support the Attorney General's claim. He claimed that he sought the injunctions for legal reasons, however, I challenged this, as have other top lawyers, and the evidence is that the decisions were taken for political reasons. It is a weakness in our system of democracy which allows for this clash of interests to occur.
Peter Goldsmith claims that he had to balance the freedom of the press against the need to protect the course of justice. However, it is Lord Levy, Ruth Turner and Jonathan Powell who have conspired to pervert the course of justice, and the police who are pursuing this investigation, and the Attorney General who is doing his utmost to shove a spoke in the wheels of justice to try and stop them from turning. Another weakness in our system of democracy is the power of the Attorney General to overrule the decision of the Crown Prosecution Office to prosecute for offences committed. Two recent examples, are where Peter Goldsmith stopped the Serious Fraud Office investigation into BAE Systems and the Al Yamamah programme with Saudi Arabia. Peter Goldsmith has attempted to distance himself from liability for this by claiming that the decision was taken on grounds of national security. Wrong, it was a political decision taken to protect the corrupt business dealings with Saudi Arabia.
Peter Goldsmith attempts to muddy the waters with his false claim that he has to balance competing public interests. However, there are not two sides to this at all there is only one public interest. On the other scale is the Labour Party interest. It is in the public interest to have a free press, and in the due administration of justice. It is false for Peter Goldsmith to claim that he takes an objective view in reaching his decisions, this is because he is too embroiled in the affair and his view must therefore be a subjective one. The role of the Attorney General and the office have become too political. What is missing in Peter Goldsmith's department is accountability to the public. This is harmful to a democracy. Only genuine reform can eradicate this rotten apple from the barrel.
Peter Goldsmith claims that he had to balance the freedom of the press against the need to protect the course of justice. However, it is Lord Levy, Ruth Turner and Jonathan Powell who have conspired to pervert the course of justice, and the police who are pursuing this investigation, and the Attorney General who is doing his utmost to shove a spoke in the wheels of justice to try and stop them from turning. Another weakness in our system of democracy is the power of the Attorney General to overrule the decision of the Crown Prosecution Office to prosecute for offences committed. Two recent examples, are where Peter Goldsmith stopped the Serious Fraud Office investigation into BAE Systems and the Al Yamamah programme with Saudi Arabia. Peter Goldsmith has attempted to distance himself from liability for this by claiming that the decision was taken on grounds of national security. Wrong, it was a political decision taken to protect the corrupt business dealings with Saudi Arabia.
Peter Goldsmith attempts to muddy the waters with his false claim that he has to balance competing public interests. However, there are not two sides to this at all there is only one public interest. On the other scale is the Labour Party interest. It is in the public interest to have a free press, and in the due administration of justice. It is false for Peter Goldsmith to claim that he takes an objective view in reaching his decisions, this is because he is too embroiled in the affair and his view must therefore be a subjective one. The role of the Attorney General and the office have become too political. What is missing in Peter Goldsmith's department is accountability to the public. This is harmful to a democracy. Only genuine reform can eradicate this rotten apple from the barrel.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Courtroom Brawl...
A top judge and a lawyer have become involved in a legal punch up, and as they stood toe to toe, the lawyer stood on the judge's toes. In the blue corner, weighing in is Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice, and in the new red corner, weighing in is Charles Falconer (a mere lawyer), the Lord Chancellor.
According to the Law Reports, Falconer threw the first punch after being warned by Phillips not to mess about in his judicial affairs. Phillips became upset because he believed that Falconer had struck a blow low down, when he feels that Falconer should belt up. Falconer had argued that geriatric retired judges should be quarantined like rabid dogs for up to 5 years. Phillips retaliated that there are already too many geriatric prisoners in the penal system, and adding more to an already overcrowded system is simply barbaric. The ratio of blows Phillips dealt Falconer left him reeling against the robes.
Lord Justice Phillips told a court reporter after the fight that he was ecstatic, "my opponent has previous form and is a repeat offender. It was a triumph for justice, and it is only right that he should leave my jurisdiction". Lord Falconer was unavailable for comment because his wig was receiving medical attention from the nit nurse.
According to the Law Reports, Falconer threw the first punch after being warned by Phillips not to mess about in his judicial affairs. Phillips became upset because he believed that Falconer had struck a blow low down, when he feels that Falconer should belt up. Falconer had argued that geriatric retired judges should be quarantined like rabid dogs for up to 5 years. Phillips retaliated that there are already too many geriatric prisoners in the penal system, and adding more to an already overcrowded system is simply barbaric. The ratio of blows Phillips dealt Falconer left him reeling against the robes.
Lord Justice Phillips told a court reporter after the fight that he was ecstatic, "my opponent has previous form and is a repeat offender. It was a triumph for justice, and it is only right that he should leave my jurisdiction". Lord Falconer was unavailable for comment because his wig was receiving medical attention from the nit nurse.
The Americans Say In God We Trust - Should They Trust Cameron?
From the Daily Telegraph, the Conservative newspaper, part of the Conservative Party rebranding exercise?
"Cameron must win back US trust", is the title of Conservative blogger Iain Dale's article in the Daily Telegraph, the opposition Tory Party's favourite broadsheet. He begins by stating, "Since 1917, Britain's relationship with America has been the most important aspect of our foreign policy". However, he fails to mention why this date is so significant. "Germany's use of the submarine against neutral shipping eventually brought the U.S. into the war in 1917", (Britannica Concise Encyclopedia). Unlike Tony Blair, who was tripping over himself to march side by side with the Americans into a war with Iraq. They say an elephant never forgets. And, what is Great about Britain "When former US Ambassador Sir Christopher Meyer was told by Number 10 to crawl up the backside of the White House and stay there"? I am not sure in which context Iain Dale uses the Latin phrase "primus inter pares", it means First among equals, it might be remembered that corrupt Tory politician, and author, Jefferey Archer used this as the title of one of his books. I am aware that Iain Dale speaks German, and the Nazis were not keen on this idea of freedom. It's a bit like George Orwell's Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".
Iain Dale recently visited America, and the general feeling he got was that Americans "had a deep distrust of the Conservatives, and of David Cameron in particular". His anti-American activity, apparently, as seen by the Administration in America, was that he exercised his right to freedom of expression. Cameron was caught between a rock and a hard place. Many in Britain did not support Blair taking our country into a war which was in breach of international law. They see Blair as Bush's poodle. It is one thing to support America in a just cause, and quite another thing to be forced into a war started by Bush just because Blair had reached a private agreement that he could win us over and the UN security Council. He was wrong. And so was David Cameron, not for exercising his freedom of speech, but it was "on the fifth anniversary of 9/11. The timing was crass and insensitive". According to Iain Dale, Americans only hear what they want to hear and ignore the rest. I wonder if the Americans do Iain, I wonder if the Americans do?
Before Labour came to power, there was the Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher whom the Americans had great respect for when she was in power. It was not Labour that toppled Margaret Thatcher from power, it was the Conservatives who stabbed her in the back on the night of the long knives. This is a corker, Iain Dale states that Cameron was right to attack America. He used to write speeches for David Davis who is coming to America shortly to try and drum up your support for the Conservatives. He intends to visit New York, Washington, and Dallas. I don't suggest that he gets the grassy knoll treatment, but a few rotten eggs and squashed tomatoes might express your feelings towards the Conservatives. Here's another corker, Iain Dale wishes to show how friendly the Conservatives are towards America with this: "A true friend is one who tells the truth, even when it is unpalatable". I agree with this sentiment entirely. However, David Cameron has just sacked Conservative MP Patrick Mercer for telling the truth!
The Conservative shadow cabinet believe that America is saying "fuck you Jack I'm alright", and that this belief demonstrates that they are overtly pro-American. They know that they have not got the support of the Bush Administration, but they also know that he will not be there for too much longer. They say that "Bush's people do not easily forgive or forget". And, neither do we, which makes Iain Dale's next piece hilarious "Bush will be gone by the time Cameron enters Downing Street". Oh, right, it's a foregone conclusion, then, that the Conservatives are going to win the next election? I think you will have to wait until then to hear the unpalatable truth!
Friday, March 09, 2007
Exclusive - extracts from Alastair Campbell's diaries "The dodgy Blair years"
Day One: I wake up to the sound of a bell ringing in my ears, at first I think that it is the alarm clock, but the Tone is different, and then I assume that it is Rory Bremner doing a very bad impression. As I wake up a bit more, I realise that it is the telephone that is ringing. I answer it, you could have bowled me over with a cricket ball. It was none other than Tony Blair, the New Labour Prime Minister. He wanted to know if I was interested in working for him as a Public Relations adviser. I must admit I hummed and arrhed for a bit, but when he said that he was a pretty straight kind of guy, I took him at face value wouldn't you? And, agreed. Just then, this bird I had picked up last night, Cherie Booth, a Scouser, wide-eyed and wide-mouthed, woke up and asked who it was on the phone. I told her, you are not going to believe this, it was Tony Blair, the New Labour Prime Minister. She said, Oh fuck, how did my husband find out so quick? I asked her, I thought you said your name is Cherie Booth. She replied that it is, but that she is also Mrs Tony Blair. Oh fuck, I thought, the first day on the job and I am screwing the bosses missus. But, it occurred before I had got the job, so my conscience is clear. Cherie was putting on her robes and saying that she would be late for court. And, there I was thinking that she had been to a fancy dress party when she picked me up last night. Outside the limousine awaited with its four police out riders to whisk me off to Downing Street. I was so excited that my head was in a spin...
The Lord Chief Justice has a point
Last night on Question Time, Piers Morgan related the tale of going to the House of Lords and having lunch there and boring the arse off a Lord who fell asleep at the table and his face fell into his bowl of soup. Before Lord Phillips became Lord Chief Justice, his reward for dismissing my case at the Court of Appeal when he was Master of the Rolls, I was telling him about the psychiatrist member on my first Parole Board hearing who fell asleep whilst trying to assess whether I was still an unacceptable risk to the public. It was after lunch, so he had probably had too much to drink. I was trying to make the point that I failed to see how his assessment could keep me in custody longer than I should be in prison when someone in his position owed both the public and myself a duty to hear the evidence. The doddery old fool was a geriatric. Lord Phillips' response was "Quite, quite, Mr Hirst, but where does that get us?". An entry in Private Eye, mi'Lord!
The Lord Chief Justice is arguing that sending more and more people to prison for longer and longer sentences is causing overcrowding in the penal system. He was particularly concerned with the increase in geriatric lifers. H.M. Prison Kingston in Portsmouth is an old peoples home, and other old peoples homes are springing up in other parts of the penal estate. Lord Phillips states that the 30 year life tariffs for murder are utterly barbaric. I agree. I think we should go back to the 19th century when lifers who were transported to Australia served between 7-8 years. This is the length of a life sentence in the enlightened Swedish penal system. He states that he is against the mandatory life sentence for murder, and that it should be replaced with determinate sentences to fit the circumstances of each case.
I know that I cost the taxpayer well over a £1M during my life sentence. There are now over 3,000 lifers in prison for murder, manslaughter, rape and arson. And another 2,000 automatic lifers, on 3 strikes and you are out, for stealing bottles of milk from Tesco and such like. There is a need for some to serve natural life, and some to serve more than a tariff of 8 years, however, the vast majority are serving too long and it is costing too much. Whichever party comes to power at the next election, this growing problem needs to be tackled. At present, it would appear that both John Reid and David Davis are asleep together in a double bed.
The Lord Chief Justice is arguing that sending more and more people to prison for longer and longer sentences is causing overcrowding in the penal system. He was particularly concerned with the increase in geriatric lifers. H.M. Prison Kingston in Portsmouth is an old peoples home, and other old peoples homes are springing up in other parts of the penal estate. Lord Phillips states that the 30 year life tariffs for murder are utterly barbaric. I agree. I think we should go back to the 19th century when lifers who were transported to Australia served between 7-8 years. This is the length of a life sentence in the enlightened Swedish penal system. He states that he is against the mandatory life sentence for murder, and that it should be replaced with determinate sentences to fit the circumstances of each case.
I know that I cost the taxpayer well over a £1M during my life sentence. There are now over 3,000 lifers in prison for murder, manslaughter, rape and arson. And another 2,000 automatic lifers, on 3 strikes and you are out, for stealing bottles of milk from Tesco and such like. There is a need for some to serve natural life, and some to serve more than a tariff of 8 years, however, the vast majority are serving too long and it is costing too much. Whichever party comes to power at the next election, this growing problem needs to be tackled. At present, it would appear that both John Reid and David Davis are asleep together in a double bed.
England for the Irish...
Prisoners take right to vote battle to Law Lords
[Published: Thursday 8, March 2007 - 11:33]
By Deborah McAleese
Two Ulster prisoners whose legal bid for permission to vote in the Assembly elections was thwarted by the High Court are set to take their battle to the House of Lords, the Belfast Telegraph can reveal today.
Armed robber Ciaran Toner and burglar Hugh Walsh have claimed that the blanket ban which prevents inmates from voting is a breach of their human rights and have decided to take their previously unsuccessful fight for the right to go to the polls all the way to the Law Lords.
The House of Lords is the final court of appeal on points of law in criminal cases for Northern Ireland, England and Wales.
Toner and Walsh last week launched an audacious bid to halt the March 7 elections until new legislation was brought into force that would permit them to vote.
However, Mr Justice Gillen said that the elections were a matter of profound importance to the people of Northern Ireland and that no impediment should be put in the path of progress and therefore dismissed the case.
The government is currently carrying out a consultation on the current arrangements in the UK which bar all convicted offenders held in UK prisons from voting, but it is not known how long it will be before proposals to dispose of the blanket ban are put before Parliament.
Toner and Walsh claim that disqualification from voting is a breach of their human rights. They both applied to the Electoral Office in January to join the electoral register but the province's chief electoral officer, Douglas Bain, refused the application stating that he had no room under existing law to reach a different decision.
The prisoners' solicitor, Garrett Greene, from McCann and McCann, confirmed to the Belfast Telegraph that he was now applying for leave from the Court of Appeal on behalf of his clients to take their case to the House of Lords.
"Prisoners should be given every opportunity to pay their debt to society, take responsibility for their lives and make plans for effective resettlement, this should include maintaining their right to vote.
"Giving prisoners the right to vote helps with their rehabilitation and keeps them in touch with society and their role as citizens within the community."
In January three Court of Session judges in Scotland ruled that denying prisoners the right to vote is incompatible with human rights.
Lords Abernethy, Nimmo Smith and Emslie ruled that Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 is incompatible with Article 3 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights - which states that no one should be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The case was brought by William Smith, who was serving a five-year sentence for drug dealing at the time of the 2003 Scottish Parliament elections and was refused the right to have his name on the voters roll.
Other Scottish prisoners are now taking legal action to prevent their elections from taking place in May until new legislation is passed permitting them to vote. In 2005 the European Court of Human Rights ruled a blanket ban stopping prisoners from voting was a breach of human rights.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/article2339004.ece
© Belfast Telegraph
[Published: Thursday 8, March 2007 - 11:33]
By Deborah McAleese
Two Ulster prisoners whose legal bid for permission to vote in the Assembly elections was thwarted by the High Court are set to take their battle to the House of Lords, the Belfast Telegraph can reveal today.
Armed robber Ciaran Toner and burglar Hugh Walsh have claimed that the blanket ban which prevents inmates from voting is a breach of their human rights and have decided to take their previously unsuccessful fight for the right to go to the polls all the way to the Law Lords.
The House of Lords is the final court of appeal on points of law in criminal cases for Northern Ireland, England and Wales.
Toner and Walsh last week launched an audacious bid to halt the March 7 elections until new legislation was brought into force that would permit them to vote.
However, Mr Justice Gillen said that the elections were a matter of profound importance to the people of Northern Ireland and that no impediment should be put in the path of progress and therefore dismissed the case.
The government is currently carrying out a consultation on the current arrangements in the UK which bar all convicted offenders held in UK prisons from voting, but it is not known how long it will be before proposals to dispose of the blanket ban are put before Parliament.
Toner and Walsh claim that disqualification from voting is a breach of their human rights. They both applied to the Electoral Office in January to join the electoral register but the province's chief electoral officer, Douglas Bain, refused the application stating that he had no room under existing law to reach a different decision.
The prisoners' solicitor, Garrett Greene, from McCann and McCann, confirmed to the Belfast Telegraph that he was now applying for leave from the Court of Appeal on behalf of his clients to take their case to the House of Lords.
"Prisoners should be given every opportunity to pay their debt to society, take responsibility for their lives and make plans for effective resettlement, this should include maintaining their right to vote.
"Giving prisoners the right to vote helps with their rehabilitation and keeps them in touch with society and their role as citizens within the community."
In January three Court of Session judges in Scotland ruled that denying prisoners the right to vote is incompatible with human rights.
Lords Abernethy, Nimmo Smith and Emslie ruled that Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 is incompatible with Article 3 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights - which states that no one should be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The case was brought by William Smith, who was serving a five-year sentence for drug dealing at the time of the 2003 Scottish Parliament elections and was refused the right to have his name on the voters roll.
Other Scottish prisoners are now taking legal action to prevent their elections from taking place in May until new legislation is passed permitting them to vote. In 2005 the European Court of Human Rights ruled a blanket ban stopping prisoners from voting was a breach of human rights.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/article2339004.ece
© Belfast Telegraph
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Man bites dog...
Iain Dale has had his orders from cokehead Dave, "Cameron was right to sack Patrick Mercer". Yes, Cameron is right in that he is not left. The Tories have elected Dave Cameron, for better or worse, as their leader. There needs to be Party discipline. The problem comes with setting a good example to follow. When kettle starts calling pot black, you're snookered.
Veneer of respectability in the Tory Party
The problem with veneer is that it is only a thin top coating designed to cover what it is not underneath. Chip away at it, and it exposes the hidden side, one that is certainly less glamorous. David Cameron's Tory Party should be renamed the Veneer Party. Because that is all it is, show. Patrick Mercer has not been sacked for his views, because these are shared by the Tory Party. He has been sacked because he has exposed the underbelly to the electorate. Iain Dale is refraining from commenting until he gets his instructions from Head Office. However, his friends include the Tory and BNP supporter Paul Staines aka Guido Fawkes, and the Tory "The Hitch" who regularly posts racist comments on his and other peoples blogs, particularly Guido's.
It's the old saying which springs to mind, you can fool all of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.
It's the old saying which springs to mind, you can fool all of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.
Bullshit Alert
On Tuesday night's Newsnight, Mark Stephens, a media lawyer, questioned what was the motive for the Attorney General seeking the interim injunction, granted by Mr Justice Wilke, against the BBC on the cash for honours scandal. He opined that it was not a legal reason, because there was not a valid legal reason for applying for it. Therefore, the only other option available is that it was sought for a political motive. It has to be said that the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, is too corrupt to remain in office. He should tender his resignation, and failing that he should be sacked like any other worker caught with his hands in the till. His conduct displays the behaviour usually associated with the common criminal. A law officer who breaks the law and shows such contempt for the rule of law is clearly not fit for purpose.
In today's Guardian, "Move to gag media was not political, Goldsmith says", by Vickram Dodd, Lord Goldsmith, "insisted he had been acting as a lawyer and not as a politician". This amount of bullshit requires a large shovel to move it out of the way to get at the truth. Mark Stephens, in Tuesday's Timesonline, "Comment: why cash-for-honours injunctions are ludicrous", argued that Goldsmith's move was without legal precedent. That does not prevent someone from pioneering a new path through the jungle. I have done it myself many times with great success. However, take a pinch of salt with the bullshit and it won't taste any better. Because Goldsmith has at least set two precedents where he has taken political as opposed to legal decisions, one was the advice he changed for Tony Blair on the Iraq war, and the other was the decision not to pursue the Saudi deal with the Serious Fraud Office.
Along with Mark Stephens, I question Mr Justice Wilke's judgment. Given that he is unable to give a written explanation how he arrived at his decision, perhaps he should take a rest until he recovers? Harlow and Rawlings have argued that there are red light and green light theorists. The former believe in curbing the excesses of the State, by stopping it dead in its tracks. Whereas the latter believe in allowing the State to trample all over our civil liberties. Mrs Justice Swift by removing the injunction not only applied common sense, but also applied established legal principles to the case. For justice to not only be seen to be done but manifestly seen to be done, it requires Mr Justice Wilkes to make a public statement to justify his reasoning or we can safely assume that he has lost his sense of reasoning in which case he is not fit for purpose and should stand down or be removed from judicial office.
The place for manure is on a compost heap or on the garden. Not in the Attorney General's office and sitting in the High Court of Justice.
In today's Guardian, "Move to gag media was not political, Goldsmith says", by Vickram Dodd, Lord Goldsmith, "insisted he had been acting as a lawyer and not as a politician". This amount of bullshit requires a large shovel to move it out of the way to get at the truth. Mark Stephens, in Tuesday's Timesonline, "Comment: why cash-for-honours injunctions are ludicrous", argued that Goldsmith's move was without legal precedent. That does not prevent someone from pioneering a new path through the jungle. I have done it myself many times with great success. However, take a pinch of salt with the bullshit and it won't taste any better. Because Goldsmith has at least set two precedents where he has taken political as opposed to legal decisions, one was the advice he changed for Tony Blair on the Iraq war, and the other was the decision not to pursue the Saudi deal with the Serious Fraud Office.
Along with Mark Stephens, I question Mr Justice Wilke's judgment. Given that he is unable to give a written explanation how he arrived at his decision, perhaps he should take a rest until he recovers? Harlow and Rawlings have argued that there are red light and green light theorists. The former believe in curbing the excesses of the State, by stopping it dead in its tracks. Whereas the latter believe in allowing the State to trample all over our civil liberties. Mrs Justice Swift by removing the injunction not only applied common sense, but also applied established legal principles to the case. For justice to not only be seen to be done but manifestly seen to be done, it requires Mr Justice Wilkes to make a public statement to justify his reasoning or we can safely assume that he has lost his sense of reasoning in which case he is not fit for purpose and should stand down or be removed from judicial office.
The place for manure is on a compost heap or on the garden. Not in the Attorney General's office and sitting in the High Court of Justice.
Co-incidence or what? (Link)
It is usually me that pinches a cartoon to emphasize a point, here it would appear that a cartoonist has pinched my idea. If this is the case, I am not offended, on the contrary, I am sincerely flattered.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Hello Tecnorati
Hello Technorati
Anybody at work today? Why do you have a ping if it doesn't ping? What is the point of me alerting you to updates if you just ignore them? The medium is the message, geddit?
UPDATE: Eventually, 20 minutes ago, Technorati finally responded!
Anybody at work today? Why do you have a ping if it doesn't ping? What is the point of me alerting you to updates if you just ignore them? The medium is the message, geddit?
UPDATE: Eventually, 20 minutes ago, Technorati finally responded!
Now you see it, now you don't...
Does anyone know why the Guardian has pulled its today's stories (except one) of the cash for honours scandal off the internet?
UPDATE: Grauniad must have been updating its website as I found the missing articles today, they have been sidelined. Alan Rushbridger, it makes it easier for those searching related articles if they are all in one place, for example, putting a mantlepiece clock on the mantlepiece as opposed to in the side cupboard.
UPDATE: Grauniad must have been updating its website as I found the missing articles today, they have been sidelined. Alan Rushbridger, it makes it easier for those searching related articles if they are all in one place, for example, putting a mantlepiece clock on the mantlepiece as opposed to in the side cupboard.
The jig-saw puzzle - What's wrong with this picture?
In the old days, before TV, or at least before it started to control peoples lives, many families would get together and through collaboration would piece together a jig-saw puzzle. The only difference here is that it is doubtful that all the pieces will be present. Nevertheless, enough pieces will be put together to get a reasonable picture. Nothing short of a full public inquiry will satisfy in a democracy.
Notsaussure reports that the Great Wall of China is effectively preventing some Chinese internet users from accessing particular blogs. I blame Google for taking the pro censorship line in the first place, it's the modern equivalent to burning books of old. As of yesterday, I am still not banned in China, and don't want to be. However, there is a Tory blogger conspiracy going on in England which is equally guilty of censoring which is a breach of human rights against freedom of expression.
What is it that someone behind the scenes at 18doughtystreet.com, the internet TV station, didn't want Iain Dale to broadcast last night? On Iain Dale's Diary, there is an attack on the Guardian. Is this just sour grapes from Iain Dale, because the Guardian decided to publish and be damned whereas Guido, Iain Dale's Diary and the BBC bottled it? True, Guido has referred to the smoking gun, previously, but refrained from pulling the trigger. The thing with Guido is that he says little to start with, then when more details come from elsewhere later, he claims credit by saying I told you so. But he has said sweet FA, its a bare bone. Similarly, Iain Dale's Diary, published a little bit of a rumour, a morsel of meat, to add to the bare bone. Just enough to get one to salivate, and the thirst for knowledge leads one to go digging for more.
In today's Guardian, Patrick Wintour and David Hencke have this interesting twist or take: "Political sources said yesterday it would be perfectly legitimate for Lord Levy to attend meetings at which honours were discussed. Loans or donations given by party members should not preclude anyone from being considered for an honour by the prime minister, they said". Duh! It is precisely because they have given loans or donations that they are considered for an honour! This is what the cash for honours scandal is all about, it is illegal and corrupt. It is why the police are investigating. The starting gun was triggered by the Scottish Nationalist MP, Angus MacNeil. He declared openly what everybody knew about but did not say. Some would say that this is a breath of fresh air. Others say that he has done the unmentionable, and farted at a party.
I am unclear exactly what Ruth Turner's role is as her job description appears to be rather vague. However, what is clear is that she directly or indirectly leaked to the BBC the substance of the document. The substance related to Lord Levy and his involvement in the cash for honours scandal, and his attempt to pervert the course of justice by subjecting Ruth Turner, under duress, to give a different version of events to the police. Lord Levy faces one charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice in relation to Ruth Turner, and a second charge in relation to the false statements he made to the police whilst under caution as to his role in the cash for honours scandal.
Jack Hughes will provide more revelations which I will publish shortly.
Notsaussure reports that the Great Wall of China is effectively preventing some Chinese internet users from accessing particular blogs. I blame Google for taking the pro censorship line in the first place, it's the modern equivalent to burning books of old. As of yesterday, I am still not banned in China, and don't want to be. However, there is a Tory blogger conspiracy going on in England which is equally guilty of censoring which is a breach of human rights against freedom of expression.
What is it that someone behind the scenes at 18doughtystreet.com, the internet TV station, didn't want Iain Dale to broadcast last night? On Iain Dale's Diary, there is an attack on the Guardian. Is this just sour grapes from Iain Dale, because the Guardian decided to publish and be damned whereas Guido, Iain Dale's Diary and the BBC bottled it? True, Guido has referred to the smoking gun, previously, but refrained from pulling the trigger. The thing with Guido is that he says little to start with, then when more details come from elsewhere later, he claims credit by saying I told you so. But he has said sweet FA, its a bare bone. Similarly, Iain Dale's Diary, published a little bit of a rumour, a morsel of meat, to add to the bare bone. Just enough to get one to salivate, and the thirst for knowledge leads one to go digging for more.
In today's Guardian, Patrick Wintour and David Hencke have this interesting twist or take: "Political sources said yesterday it would be perfectly legitimate for Lord Levy to attend meetings at which honours were discussed. Loans or donations given by party members should not preclude anyone from being considered for an honour by the prime minister, they said". Duh! It is precisely because they have given loans or donations that they are considered for an honour! This is what the cash for honours scandal is all about, it is illegal and corrupt. It is why the police are investigating. The starting gun was triggered by the Scottish Nationalist MP, Angus MacNeil. He declared openly what everybody knew about but did not say. Some would say that this is a breath of fresh air. Others say that he has done the unmentionable, and farted at a party.
I am unclear exactly what Ruth Turner's role is as her job description appears to be rather vague. However, what is clear is that she directly or indirectly leaked to the BBC the substance of the document. The substance related to Lord Levy and his involvement in the cash for honours scandal, and his attempt to pervert the course of justice by subjecting Ruth Turner, under duress, to give a different version of events to the police. Lord Levy faces one charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice in relation to Ruth Turner, and a second charge in relation to the false statements he made to the police whilst under caution as to his role in the cash for honours scandal.
Jack Hughes will provide more revelations which I will publish shortly.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
The Afternoon Matinee presents The Lone Stranger
Big Chief Fundraiser stood by the camp fire, brooding, and carving a voodoo doll out of a piece of deadwood that he had found on the trail of the lonesome pine. He couldn’t sit down because earlier in the day Sergeant Bilko of the Seventh Cavalry had fired a shot at him and had given him a pain in the arse. In the distance, he could just make out the outline of a settlement called The Little Houses of Parliament on the Prairie. He wound up his wind up radio, and the radio station DJ announced that an artist from the Turner gallery, called Babe Ruth, had just released a cover version of the Animals classic “Baby please don’t let me be misunderstood”. He attacked the piece of wood with ferocity. He kicked the radio into the fire, and it immediately began to emit puffs of black smoke. Close by, Bilko tried to read the message being sent out, but it wasn’t very clear. Nevertheless, he was able to determine that there was no smoke signals without fire. He felt contented because his Auntie Beeb had initially not allowed him to tell a story, in case it offended the Sheriff of Dodgy City. But when the Local Rag published it first, she relented as the Sheriff then said it was ok.
Meanwhile, Big Chief Fundraiser had rescued the radio and it was still capable of playing but the sound was somewhat distorted. It sounded like the DJ announced Don’t be clean and the song sounded familiar too. “Bribe, bribe, Mister M&G guy, rode my Gideon Meir to the Levy but the cashpoint was dry…no matter how you slice it, cash for a Peerage or a Knight, the position I’m in is very tight…”. Big Chief Fundraiser wondered out aloud “How?”. A snake slithered by and he watched the forked tongue flicker. The voodoo doll finished, he proceeded to stick pine needles into its body. In the distance a scream could be heard. The Medicine Man was sent for, a local witchdoctor, from his bag of tricks he pulled out a bottle which appeared to leak from the top, on the label it read HP source…
[To be continued: Will Big Chief Fundraiser rejoin the tribe or remain beyond the paleface an outcast in a lawless land?]
Meanwhile, Big Chief Fundraiser had rescued the radio and it was still capable of playing but the sound was somewhat distorted. It sounded like the DJ announced Don’t be clean and the song sounded familiar too. “Bribe, bribe, Mister M&G guy, rode my Gideon Meir to the Levy but the cashpoint was dry…no matter how you slice it, cash for a Peerage or a Knight, the position I’m in is very tight…”. Big Chief Fundraiser wondered out aloud “How?”. A snake slithered by and he watched the forked tongue flicker. The voodoo doll finished, he proceeded to stick pine needles into its body. In the distance a scream could be heard. The Medicine Man was sent for, a local witchdoctor, from his bag of tricks he pulled out a bottle which appeared to leak from the top, on the label it read HP source…
[To be continued: Will Big Chief Fundraiser rejoin the tribe or remain beyond the paleface an outcast in a lawless land?]
BBC injunction lifted (link)
I have to say, I did not think that the injunction could withstand the blogger power which did not bow down to the pressure being applied to the mainstream media. The Guardian has got back some of its credibility as the guardian of free speech which has in the past wilted somewhat on exposing abuses of prisoners, and its not so Comment Is Free anymore. A combined effort by bloggers and the mainstream media finally opened the can of worms the government attempted to bury.
Why don't we go the whole hog? Anyone fancy a revolution? On second thoughts, I am sure that John Reid already has a law and plans to deal with two or more people getting together for a social occasion...
Why don't we go the whole hog? Anyone fancy a revolution? On second thoughts, I am sure that John Reid already has a law and plans to deal with two or more people getting together for a social occasion...
Whatever next! John Reid's plan to turn a 3 star hotel into a prison...
It beggars belief that John Reid has only just had genuine thoughts of prison reform when it is deemed that Lord Levy, Jonathan Powell, and Ruth Turner should be kept in a manner which they are accustomed to...
UPDATE:Hat-Tip to http://notsaussure.wordpress.com/
http://www.areyoucorruptenough.co.uk/main.swf
UPDATE:Hat-Tip to http://notsaussure.wordpress.com/
http://www.areyoucorruptenough.co.uk/main.swf
Amended injunction leads to amended Labour policy
Yesterday's amended injunction against the BBC, and today's disturbing story in the Grauniad about the sudden high rise in crime in one particular street in London, where there is always a heavy police presence, has led the Labour Party to amend its law and order policy. The updated version is "Tough on white collar crime and tough on the causes of white collar crime". Unfortunately, neither Lord Levy, Jonathan Powell or Ruth Turner were available for comment. Apparently, they are too busy helping the police with their inquiries...
Floodgates open in Downingstreetgate
Yesterday I received a telephone call from a Grauniad journalist. He asked about a story. There was a brief discussion about the gag on the BBC. And an agreement of minds where the leak came from. I referred the journalist to my legal advice, posted early yesterday, which stated that it did not bind others in the media. He thanked me and said he would call again.
The Grauniad decided to run with the story. Once more, the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, attempted to gag the media by seeking a High Court injunction. This time he failed to persuade the judge. Perhaps, the BBC should have sought my advice first? In any event, the Attorney General had to concede that the Grauniad would not be breaking the injunction if it went to press. But, it may prejudice a possible criminal prosecution. However, as the papers had not yet gone to the Crown Prosecution Service, and no charges had yet been brought, it was not an issue for denying the press freedom. There was, then, no substantial risk of prejudicing court proceedings.
The judge recognised that the story was already in the public domain, on blogs and being printed elsewhere. The judge applied the legal principle that the government cannot exercise prior restraint on the media.
I think that the police should be freezing Lord Levy's assets (including those in Israel), and seizing his passport. Ideally, he should be arrested and remanded in custody because he has such resources to effect an escape from justice. His tactics are nothing short of those used by gangsters to intimidate a witness. I think that Ruth Turner should be offered a deal if she turns Queen's evidence. It is time that we heard the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, after all the lies from Tony Blair.
The Grauniad decided to run with the story. Once more, the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, attempted to gag the media by seeking a High Court injunction. This time he failed to persuade the judge. Perhaps, the BBC should have sought my advice first? In any event, the Attorney General had to concede that the Grauniad would not be breaking the injunction if it went to press. But, it may prejudice a possible criminal prosecution. However, as the papers had not yet gone to the Crown Prosecution Service, and no charges had yet been brought, it was not an issue for denying the press freedom. There was, then, no substantial risk of prejudicing court proceedings.
The judge recognised that the story was already in the public domain, on blogs and being printed elsewhere. The judge applied the legal principle that the government cannot exercise prior restraint on the media.
I think that the police should be freezing Lord Levy's assets (including those in Israel), and seizing his passport. Ideally, he should be arrested and remanded in custody because he has such resources to effect an escape from justice. His tactics are nothing short of those used by gangsters to intimidate a witness. I think that Ruth Turner should be offered a deal if she turns Queen's evidence. It is time that we heard the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, after all the lies from Tony Blair.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Breaking News on Downingstreetgate
Cash for honours: key document names Levy
Memo from Blair aide says peer tried to influence her evidence
Patrick Wintour
Tuesday March 6, 2007
The Guardian
Detectives are investigating whether Lord Levy, Labour's chief fundraiser, urged one of Tony Blair's most senior aides to shape the evidence she gave to Scotland Yard, the Guardian has learned.
Police have been investigating whether Ruth Turner, the prime minister's director of external relations, was being asked by Lord Levy to modify information that might have been of interest to the inquiry. Officers have been trying to piece together details of a meeting they had last year. Ms Turner gave an account of it to her lawyers and this has been passed to police.
Article continues
It is this legal document and the exchange between Ms Turner and Lord Levy that has been at the heart of the inquiry in recent months, and which prompted the focus to shift from whether there was an effort to sell peerages to whether there has been a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
A spokesman for Lord Levy said he was unable to comment. He has consistently denied any wrongdoing.
Ms Turner has also protested her innocence and her conduct has been defended by Downing Street.
During the inquiry both have been arrested and interviewed on suspicion of trying to pervert the course of justice, which is an imprisonable offence.
Their meeting is understood to have taken place in the summer, at the start of the police inquiry.
Sources have said the two had a difficult conversation. The police are attempting to establish whether this could be interpreted as Lord Levy having asked Ms Turner to adjust the evidence she was preparing to give the Metropolitan Police, whose inquiry has led to senior members of Downing Street staff - including the prime minister, Tony Blair - being questioned by detectives.
The Guardian does not know in what way evidence was to be adjusted, or indeed if he asked her to do so in any significant way.
The BBC said yesterday that Ms Turner sent an email to the chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, but other sources available to the Guardian suggest there was no such email. Lord Levy and Ms Turner are central to Labour's system of fundraising, with Ms Turner liaising with the Lords appointments commission and party donors.
At the request of the police the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, was granted a blanket injunction on Friday evening by the courts stopping the BBC making any reference to its story, the alleged email, its sender, recipient or its contents. The contents of the injunction were not relayed to the rest of the media. The injunction was partially lifted yesterday to allow the BBC to claim the email concerned Lord Levy, and was sent to Mr Powell by Ms Turner.
The attorney general's office said: "The BBC and the attorney general today agreed to a variation of the injunction obtained on Friday concerning a particular document relating to the 'cash for honours' police investigation. In agreeing to this variation, the attorney general was not intending to indicate or confirm that any particular document was in fact sent or received."
Over the weekend Downing Street was accused of being responsible for the leak, something No 10 denied yesterday.
The Crown Prosecution Service issued its own robust statement that it was not involved in the leak.
The police have continued to deny responsibility for the various leaks that have marked the inquiry, a claim that is treated with extreme scepticism in parts of Downing Street.
The prime minister's official spokesman said: "Suggestions that we leaked or were trying to leak this information are just plain wrong - and that's not based on my personal hunch. It's because there are inaccuracies in reports which mean it can't have come from No 10."
Mr Blair's spokesman went on: "I can't get into what those [inaccuracies] are because our approach all the way through is we are against all leaks and speculation. Leaking in the past has been unhelpful, just as this leak has been unhelpful."
Ms Turner has been the subject of two interviews under caution, and is still on bail. One of her interviews led to a dawn raid of her house where she was forced to dress in front of a policewoman.
The mood in Downing Street remains that Ms Turner has done nothing wrong.
Memo from Blair aide says peer tried to influence her evidence
Patrick Wintour
Tuesday March 6, 2007
The Guardian
Detectives are investigating whether Lord Levy, Labour's chief fundraiser, urged one of Tony Blair's most senior aides to shape the evidence she gave to Scotland Yard, the Guardian has learned.
Police have been investigating whether Ruth Turner, the prime minister's director of external relations, was being asked by Lord Levy to modify information that might have been of interest to the inquiry. Officers have been trying to piece together details of a meeting they had last year. Ms Turner gave an account of it to her lawyers and this has been passed to police.
Article continues
It is this legal document and the exchange between Ms Turner and Lord Levy that has been at the heart of the inquiry in recent months, and which prompted the focus to shift from whether there was an effort to sell peerages to whether there has been a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
A spokesman for Lord Levy said he was unable to comment. He has consistently denied any wrongdoing.
Ms Turner has also protested her innocence and her conduct has been defended by Downing Street.
During the inquiry both have been arrested and interviewed on suspicion of trying to pervert the course of justice, which is an imprisonable offence.
Their meeting is understood to have taken place in the summer, at the start of the police inquiry.
Sources have said the two had a difficult conversation. The police are attempting to establish whether this could be interpreted as Lord Levy having asked Ms Turner to adjust the evidence she was preparing to give the Metropolitan Police, whose inquiry has led to senior members of Downing Street staff - including the prime minister, Tony Blair - being questioned by detectives.
The Guardian does not know in what way evidence was to be adjusted, or indeed if he asked her to do so in any significant way.
The BBC said yesterday that Ms Turner sent an email to the chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, but other sources available to the Guardian suggest there was no such email. Lord Levy and Ms Turner are central to Labour's system of fundraising, with Ms Turner liaising with the Lords appointments commission and party donors.
At the request of the police the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, was granted a blanket injunction on Friday evening by the courts stopping the BBC making any reference to its story, the alleged email, its sender, recipient or its contents. The contents of the injunction were not relayed to the rest of the media. The injunction was partially lifted yesterday to allow the BBC to claim the email concerned Lord Levy, and was sent to Mr Powell by Ms Turner.
The attorney general's office said: "The BBC and the attorney general today agreed to a variation of the injunction obtained on Friday concerning a particular document relating to the 'cash for honours' police investigation. In agreeing to this variation, the attorney general was not intending to indicate or confirm that any particular document was in fact sent or received."
Over the weekend Downing Street was accused of being responsible for the leak, something No 10 denied yesterday.
The Crown Prosecution Service issued its own robust statement that it was not involved in the leak.
The police have continued to deny responsibility for the various leaks that have marked the inquiry, a claim that is treated with extreme scepticism in parts of Downing Street.
The prime minister's official spokesman said: "Suggestions that we leaked or were trying to leak this information are just plain wrong - and that's not based on my personal hunch. It's because there are inaccuracies in reports which mean it can't have come from No 10."
Mr Blair's spokesman went on: "I can't get into what those [inaccuracies] are because our approach all the way through is we are against all leaks and speculation. Leaking in the past has been unhelpful, just as this leak has been unhelpful."
Ms Turner has been the subject of two interviews under caution, and is still on bail. One of her interviews led to a dawn raid of her house where she was forced to dress in front of a policewoman.
The mood in Downing Street remains that Ms Turner has done nothing wrong.
Downingstreetgate.
The lead story on Newsnight tonight, confirms that it was Turner to Powell and the subject matter was Levy, but it was not an email but a document. Odds on it was a memo. This being the case, rather than Nick Robinson trying to cover tracks that it leaked from Downing Street, a second source now confirms that it leaked from Number 10.
Most Wanted - Rogues Gallery
Wanted: Lord Haw Haw Falconer, for misleading the public.
Lord Goldsmith: Wanted for representing Tony Blair which is not in the public interest to serve one master and show contempt for the peasants.
Jonathan Powell: Wanted for conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
Lord Levy: Wanted for conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
Ruth Turner: Wanted in relation to perverting the course of justice.
Lord Goldsmith: Wanted for representing Tony Blair which is not in the public interest to serve one master and show contempt for the peasants.
Jonathan Powell: Wanted for conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
Lord Levy: Wanted for conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
Ruth Turner: Wanted in relation to perverting the course of justice.
BBC goes back into court...
The BBC has been back in the High Court this afternoon, and was successful in getting the injunction amended to enable them to report that the email was sent by Ruth Turner, which implicates her, to Jonathan Powell, implicating him, and did in fact refer to Lord Levy, implicating him. However, the BBC are still prevented from publishing the content of the email.
See the post below for my view on where everybody else stands.
If Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair's chief of staff, did not bring it to Tony Blair's attention, why not? If Ruth Turner, Alistair Campbell's clone, did not bring it to Tony Blair's attention, why not?
The noose is tightening around Tony Blair's neck. Will the hangman pull the lever for the trapdoor to swing open?
See the post below for my view on where everybody else stands.
If Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair's chief of staff, did not bring it to Tony Blair's attention, why not? If Ruth Turner, Alistair Campbell's clone, did not bring it to Tony Blair's attention, why not?
The noose is tightening around Tony Blair's neck. Will the hangman pull the lever for the trapdoor to swing open?
Leaked email injunction not legally valid.
The High Court injunction which the Attorney General sought to ban the BBC from reporting, is only applicable to the BBC. According to David Hencke and Vikram Dodd writing in the Grauniad:
"All news organisations are covered by the gag, but cannot learn terms of what they can and cannot report because the judge who granted the injunction insisted on its terms being secret between the BBC, Scotland Yard, and the attorney general. A spokesman for Lord Goldsmith said the injunction was gained to stop a broadcast which police feared could impede their inquiries, and added: "The terms of the injunction are confidential."
However, the judge has erred in law. It is a well established principle in law, that adequate notice must be given those affected for a law to have effect. The BBC has been given notice by the judge and in this case it is legally binding, and the BBC would be in contempt of court if it failed to abide by the decision. The judge cannot prevent all other news organisations from reporting the story if they cannot learn the terms of what they can and cannot report. The legal maxim "ignorance of the law is no excuse", only applies if the law is published. A secret law is no law at all.
The relevant authorities are Lim Chin Aik v R [1963] AC 160, [1963] 1 All ER 223, and Blackpool Corporation v Locker [1948] 1 KB 349, [1948] 1 All ER 85.
What is the point of these media giants paying huge sums of money to their lawyers when a blogger is prepared to give the best advice available free?
"All news organisations are covered by the gag, but cannot learn terms of what they can and cannot report because the judge who granted the injunction insisted on its terms being secret between the BBC, Scotland Yard, and the attorney general. A spokesman for Lord Goldsmith said the injunction was gained to stop a broadcast which police feared could impede their inquiries, and added: "The terms of the injunction are confidential."
However, the judge has erred in law. It is a well established principle in law, that adequate notice must be given those affected for a law to have effect. The BBC has been given notice by the judge and in this case it is legally binding, and the BBC would be in contempt of court if it failed to abide by the decision. The judge cannot prevent all other news organisations from reporting the story if they cannot learn the terms of what they can and cannot report. The legal maxim "ignorance of the law is no excuse", only applies if the law is published. A secret law is no law at all.
The relevant authorities are Lim Chin Aik v R [1963] AC 160, [1963] 1 All ER 223, and Blackpool Corporation v Locker [1948] 1 KB 349, [1948] 1 All ER 85.
What is the point of these media giants paying huge sums of money to their lawyers when a blogger is prepared to give the best advice available free?
The Lady is not for turning in her grave...
The Lady is not for turning in her grave, at least, not yet. An idiot blogger, who shall remain nameless here because he was obviously attention seeking, posted that the old bat was dead. I put it in the category of a copycat killing. The big story over the weekend was the leaked email from Number Ten Downing Street, and the Attorney General obtaining an injunction against the BBC from publishing its content. This village idiot must have felt very lonely being left out in the cold, and decided to drum up traffic by making a false announcement. Obviously he is lacking in thinking skills, they provide a very good course in prison on Enhanced Thinking Skills, I could send him the literature on it because short term gain versus long term loss is particularly relevant here.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Curiouser and curiouser - The Downingstreetgate Affair
Normally, one would call in a plumber to fix any leak in one's household. Especially, when the leak seeps out onto the street. Some are speculating that the drip, drip, drip, of the Chinese water torture was a deliberate act of sabotage to sink the police investigation. Possibly, but it would not prevent the public from pursuing the matter further. Now, it is unlikely that Downing Street would seek to actively harm the Prime Minister. On the other hand, such a leak could possibly drown Gordon Brown, and I don't see anybody from Number Ten throwing him a lifebelt do you? What if, the motive behind it was to prolong the stay of Tony Blair until such time as a suitable replacement for the Leader of the Labour Party could be found? And, that could take ages, and ages. It makes a change from selling honours, and Downing Street furniture to American billionaires, for Downing Street to be buying time.
UPDATE: It is interesting to note in the Observer, when questioned by Mary Riddell, that Tony Blair is now refusing to endorse Gordon Brown as the new Labour Leader. And, that he states he only stated he announced that he would not stand again because he was being pressured, although he did not name names, there is that rumour that he and Brown had agreed a transfer of power.
UPDATE: It is interesting to note in the Observer, when questioned by Mary Riddell, that Tony Blair is now refusing to endorse Gordon Brown as the new Labour Leader. And, that he states he only stated he announced that he would not stand again because he was being pressured, although he did not name names, there is that rumour that he and Brown had agreed a transfer of power.
Where's The Fire (WTF)?
Technorati have this hot spot for posting blurbs. Even if you do not agree with the subject matter, but still rate it as a good piece of writing, I would appreciate it if you would click on the title which links to the site and click on where it says WTF and cast your vote for this piece.
This month, 7 March 2007, the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) closes the first stage of its consultation exercise, whether prisoners should have the vote. Of course they should, its a human right under Article 3 of the First Protocol under the European Convention on Human Rights. I took the case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in HIRST v UK(No2), and the Chamber reached a unanimous decision, finding that the blanket ban on convicted prisoners voting violated the Convention. The UK appealed to the Grand Chamber and lost.
The government has not taken kindly to losing. It had argued that public opinion would be against enfranchising convicted prisoners. However, the Grand Chamber relied upon the basic principle of universal suffrage. Stating that "Any departure from the principle of universal suffrage risks undermining the democratic validity of the legislature thus elected and the laws which it promulgates. Exclusion of any groups or categories of the general population must accordingly be reconcilable with the underlying purposes of Art.3 of Protocol No.1...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"
It would appear that the government is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. On the one hand it is under an obligation to the Convention to give affect to the Court's decision. On the other hand, it is blaming the public for not complying because it believes that the public supports its position for violating human rights. I do not believe that the public support a government which violates peoples human rights. Even if it is only on the ground that prisoners today, us tomorrow. What do you think?
This month, 7 March 2007, the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) closes the first stage of its consultation exercise, whether prisoners should have the vote. Of course they should, its a human right under Article 3 of the First Protocol under the European Convention on Human Rights. I took the case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in HIRST v UK(No2), and the Chamber reached a unanimous decision, finding that the blanket ban on convicted prisoners voting violated the Convention. The UK appealed to the Grand Chamber and lost.
The government has not taken kindly to losing. It had argued that public opinion would be against enfranchising convicted prisoners. However, the Grand Chamber relied upon the basic principle of universal suffrage. Stating that "Any departure from the principle of universal suffrage risks undermining the democratic validity of the legislature thus elected and the laws which it promulgates. Exclusion of any groups or categories of the general population must accordingly be reconcilable with the underlying purposes of Art.3 of Protocol No.1...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"
It would appear that the government is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. On the one hand it is under an obligation to the Convention to give affect to the Court's decision. On the other hand, it is blaming the public for not complying because it believes that the public supports its position for violating human rights. I do not believe that the public support a government which violates peoples human rights. Even if it is only on the ground that prisoners today, us tomorrow. What do you think?
Leaking of an email
Quite a convenient title, given the present situation in Downingstreetgate, however, I must confess that this story relates to a different email, one that I received, and am about to leak here. It was sent to me from the book publishers The Friday Project, and offering me a book deal. It states: "I found your blog via a comment you left on Rachel North London's blog (we're publishing her book) and it struck me that your's is a fascinating story". The Friday Project's slogan reads "turning the best of the web into the finest of books", (please note the Fink, as you appear to have let this slip through your fingers on your web grab).
Recently, The Wife In The North has got a book deal. I am sure that when the web and blogs took off that this kind of development was not envisaged, simply because it is an alternative means of communication from the mainstream. However, this cross over is not just restricted to books. For example, Iain Dale of 18doughtystreet.com the internet TV station has also recently been popping up here, there and everywhere on terrestrial TV. I suppose it is a bit like the indy film companies who start out being separate and then become so successful that they end up becoming absorbed into the mainstream.
Recently, The Wife In The North has got a book deal. I am sure that when the web and blogs took off that this kind of development was not envisaged, simply because it is an alternative means of communication from the mainstream. However, this cross over is not just restricted to books. For example, Iain Dale of 18doughtystreet.com the internet TV station has also recently been popping up here, there and everywhere on terrestrial TV. I suppose it is a bit like the indy film companies who start out being separate and then become so successful that they end up becoming absorbed into the mainstream.
A Batchelor In The North
Have you ever had one of those moments when you ask yourself, "What day is it?". I did that yesterday, and couldn't quite make up my mind whether it was Saturday or Sunday. I knew it was a weekend day, because on Friday I remember reading the Fink's Weekend Central. He still hasn't got the hang of the Web Grab, it's supposed to direct you to the best sites on the internet. Unless he visits my blog, how's he going to know what he has been missing so far? There's an exclusive in the pipeline...
In the end, I made up my mind that it was Sunday yesterday, not that it matters, and that today being Monday I have an appointment at the Hull Area Business Advice Centre (HABAC), and another appointment with my bank manager, at Barclay's, who keep him in a cupboard and only bring him out when it is necessary. Four hours sleep and I am back on the computer, having reheated in the microwave half of the fish, chips and peas I did not eat last night from the chippy. It's the first time that I have had this for breakfast! If you have ever seen Wallace and Gromit, I'm a bit like Wallace in that I get out of bed and simply put on my clothes and that's the start of my day. I keep meaning to do what most normal men do, that is, wash, shave, clean my teeth, and comb my hair. Image. But, I never get around to it, settling instead with just a shit.
When I came back to the computer, I check The Times, and note that it is registering The Sunday Times. Could it be that they have not woken up at The Times yet? I check the date, 4th of March, and then hover the mouse over the time displayed on the computer and this correlates with The Times. "Oh, its Sunday, then, not Monday", which means that I have not got any appointments until tomorrow. It's a day of rest.
No rest for the wicked...
In the end, I made up my mind that it was Sunday yesterday, not that it matters, and that today being Monday I have an appointment at the Hull Area Business Advice Centre (HABAC), and another appointment with my bank manager, at Barclay's, who keep him in a cupboard and only bring him out when it is necessary. Four hours sleep and I am back on the computer, having reheated in the microwave half of the fish, chips and peas I did not eat last night from the chippy. It's the first time that I have had this for breakfast! If you have ever seen Wallace and Gromit, I'm a bit like Wallace in that I get out of bed and simply put on my clothes and that's the start of my day. I keep meaning to do what most normal men do, that is, wash, shave, clean my teeth, and comb my hair. Image. But, I never get around to it, settling instead with just a shit.
When I came back to the computer, I check The Times, and note that it is registering The Sunday Times. Could it be that they have not woken up at The Times yet? I check the date, 4th of March, and then hover the mouse over the time displayed on the computer and this correlates with The Times. "Oh, its Sunday, then, not Monday", which means that I have not got any appointments until tomorrow. It's a day of rest.
No rest for the wicked...
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Prison reform - Law breaker to law-maker.
Earlier, I mentioned Hull Prison Special Unit. The name changed from the days when we had Control Units. It was designed for those deemed to be "the mad, and the bad, the difficult and the dangerous". I admit that I was difficult, even go as far as saying that some people would say that I am still difficult. It was a pressure cooker environment, only six of us in there, even though it had capacity for twenty. The Prison Officer's Association said that they would only man it with six inmates, they felt any more was too much of a threat to safety. A "gangster" from Doncaster, when I went to see him in his cell to have a chat with him said, "You're more intimidating than the Kray Twins and the Richardson's put together". We reached an understanding that he would not play any more prison politics, or "mind games" with me, via others, and it ended a peaceful meeting.
I volunteered for the experiment in the Special Unit. I did not take the decision lightly, but had thought it out by examining my options. I was selected because I had, a couple of months before, put an Acting Senior Officer in intensive care. His "crime" was that he had broken an "unwritten rule", power had gone to his head with this temporary promotion, and he decided to change a custom and practice that has been accepted ever since I first went to prison in April 1971. He was going to put an end to the perks behind the Hot-Plate. He offered three other inmates out before I took him up on the challenge. I waited for him on the stairwell, unseen by the landing screws who were sat down at their tables, smoking fags, drinking coffee or tea, and reading their Sunday newspapers. Generally, The News of the World, hence the nick name "News of the Screws".
I had put my rock in a sock, which I kept under my bed, within easy reach, in case anyone had decided to give me "breakfast in bed" which I had not ordered from the Hall Porter the night before. He was supposed to be a tasty bastard, so I was taking no chances, I watched him as he climbed the stairs, a pile of prisoners newspapers in one hand, and his keys in the other. When he inserted the key to unlock the stairwell door to the "Ones", he was attached to a chain and the turned key in the lock meant that he had no escape. That's when I struck him over the head, he staggered and slumped a bit but did not go down. So, I hit him again. That did the trick, he was out cold on the floor. I fully expected the alarm bell to sound straight away. But it didn't, the act was not witnessed by any member of staff. I became a bit concerned that he was in need of medical attention, and that this could have happened in a maximum security prison, and by a Category "A" prisoner who was supposed to be under close supervision.
It was eight or ten minutes later, that a black lad came by who had been one of those offered out earlier. He wanted to go down stairs which would have brought a landing officer to the scene, so I disappeared. I heard swearing and then the sound of the alarm bell ringing. Even though I was expecting it, it still made me jump. I heard "Hirst", "Get Hirst". As the "Heavy Mob" approached, I said to them, "I'll walk". It was a policy that if a prisoner was prepared to go down to the "Block" without a fight, then he should be allowed to do so. "Oh, no, you won't" said the Physical Training Instructor (PTI), with a malicious grin on his face. He put my head into a neck lock, two others grabbed my hands and pushed my thumbs down onto my wrists, two more grabbed a leg a piece, and another grabbed and twisted my balls. I could see a governor watching, but he was too scared to intervene with these heavy handed tactics.
I was carried face down down the stairs, and along the ground floor landing out into the corridor towards the Segregation Unit. I could hear and see a Principal Officer shouting into my ear, over and over again, "You are going to suffer for this...". Someone else said, "Slower, slower", not so that I wasn't hurt, but to prolong the suffering. I kept feeling the air and blood supply being cut off in my neck. I must have passed out. At one stage, I was above it all looking down at my self being carried down to the Seg. I suppose it is what is called an out of body experience. I had not realised the journey could take as long as it did. In the "Strong Box", I was slammed down face first on the concrete bed. "God", I said. "Yes", one said, "God help you". He had misunderstood, it wasn't a plea for help, I was thinking how soft the concrete felt in comparison to the torture I had just endured. I was stripped naked, and a doctor administered some "liquid cosh" by injection into my arse. They released their grip one by one and left, slamming first one door locked, and then the outer door. The last thing I remembered was the spyhole cover scraping across and seeing an eye at the glass.
The adjudication was something of a farce, a kangaroo court, it started off with three members of the Board of Visitors, one of whom was new, and he made the error of following the Adjudication Manual to the letter and questioning in the spirit of impartiality. The Board adjourned and when it resumed there were only two members. This was unlawful. No surprise that I was found guilty, and awarded 56 days "cellular confinement" (CC), the bed and mattress were removed during the day. The Prison Governor came to see me and asked why I had done it. He nodded understandingly, without condoning my action. He said that he had a problem, and that was that the Prison Officer's Association (POA) wanted me transferred. However, as soon as he mentioned my name on the phone to other governors they all said no as whoever their worst was I was deemed to be even worse. I mulled this over for a bit, and asked to see the governor again. I told him that I believed that I had a solution to his problem, he looked relieved and asked "Have you really?". I told him what I had read in the Torygraph, about the Hull Prison Special Unit experiment. And informed him that I knew the Governor at Hull Prison, Phil Wheatley, and to call him as I was sure he would have me. "That's a relief", he said, "because I fear for your safety if I am not able to move you". And, I had already come to the conclusion that to stay I would either kill again or someone would kill me.
I was pacing the cage, outside, when a small, bald headed chap, came up to the wire. He looked at me, then looked about, and said "You don't want to be doing this for the next 20 years do you?". "No", I replied, "not really". "Right, then, leave it to me", and with that he was gone, back to the Home Office. It is said, that the authorities don't strike deals with prisoners. Experience would suggest otherwise. I was selected, but it was against the wishes of the Hull branch of the POA. Phil Wheatley had instructed Dr Peter Bennett, that he wanted me, and to get me. Phil is a powerful man and tends to get what he wants. I wrote to him beforehand asking what he expected of me. He replied "No unwarranted violence". I thought there's trust for you, leaving it too me to decide what constituted warranted violence. As it happened, I never had to use violence again, but there were a few close scrapes, where I thought I hope the "Heavy Mob" gets here quick before I felt I had to start.
It was where the transformation from law breaker to law-maker began.
I volunteered for the experiment in the Special Unit. I did not take the decision lightly, but had thought it out by examining my options. I was selected because I had, a couple of months before, put an Acting Senior Officer in intensive care. His "crime" was that he had broken an "unwritten rule", power had gone to his head with this temporary promotion, and he decided to change a custom and practice that has been accepted ever since I first went to prison in April 1971. He was going to put an end to the perks behind the Hot-Plate. He offered three other inmates out before I took him up on the challenge. I waited for him on the stairwell, unseen by the landing screws who were sat down at their tables, smoking fags, drinking coffee or tea, and reading their Sunday newspapers. Generally, The News of the World, hence the nick name "News of the Screws".
I had put my rock in a sock, which I kept under my bed, within easy reach, in case anyone had decided to give me "breakfast in bed" which I had not ordered from the Hall Porter the night before. He was supposed to be a tasty bastard, so I was taking no chances, I watched him as he climbed the stairs, a pile of prisoners newspapers in one hand, and his keys in the other. When he inserted the key to unlock the stairwell door to the "Ones", he was attached to a chain and the turned key in the lock meant that he had no escape. That's when I struck him over the head, he staggered and slumped a bit but did not go down. So, I hit him again. That did the trick, he was out cold on the floor. I fully expected the alarm bell to sound straight away. But it didn't, the act was not witnessed by any member of staff. I became a bit concerned that he was in need of medical attention, and that this could have happened in a maximum security prison, and by a Category "A" prisoner who was supposed to be under close supervision.
It was eight or ten minutes later, that a black lad came by who had been one of those offered out earlier. He wanted to go down stairs which would have brought a landing officer to the scene, so I disappeared. I heard swearing and then the sound of the alarm bell ringing. Even though I was expecting it, it still made me jump. I heard "Hirst", "Get Hirst". As the "Heavy Mob" approached, I said to them, "I'll walk". It was a policy that if a prisoner was prepared to go down to the "Block" without a fight, then he should be allowed to do so. "Oh, no, you won't" said the Physical Training Instructor (PTI), with a malicious grin on his face. He put my head into a neck lock, two others grabbed my hands and pushed my thumbs down onto my wrists, two more grabbed a leg a piece, and another grabbed and twisted my balls. I could see a governor watching, but he was too scared to intervene with these heavy handed tactics.
I was carried face down down the stairs, and along the ground floor landing out into the corridor towards the Segregation Unit. I could hear and see a Principal Officer shouting into my ear, over and over again, "You are going to suffer for this...". Someone else said, "Slower, slower", not so that I wasn't hurt, but to prolong the suffering. I kept feeling the air and blood supply being cut off in my neck. I must have passed out. At one stage, I was above it all looking down at my self being carried down to the Seg. I suppose it is what is called an out of body experience. I had not realised the journey could take as long as it did. In the "Strong Box", I was slammed down face first on the concrete bed. "God", I said. "Yes", one said, "God help you". He had misunderstood, it wasn't a plea for help, I was thinking how soft the concrete felt in comparison to the torture I had just endured. I was stripped naked, and a doctor administered some "liquid cosh" by injection into my arse. They released their grip one by one and left, slamming first one door locked, and then the outer door. The last thing I remembered was the spyhole cover scraping across and seeing an eye at the glass.
The adjudication was something of a farce, a kangaroo court, it started off with three members of the Board of Visitors, one of whom was new, and he made the error of following the Adjudication Manual to the letter and questioning in the spirit of impartiality. The Board adjourned and when it resumed there were only two members. This was unlawful. No surprise that I was found guilty, and awarded 56 days "cellular confinement" (CC), the bed and mattress were removed during the day. The Prison Governor came to see me and asked why I had done it. He nodded understandingly, without condoning my action. He said that he had a problem, and that was that the Prison Officer's Association (POA) wanted me transferred. However, as soon as he mentioned my name on the phone to other governors they all said no as whoever their worst was I was deemed to be even worse. I mulled this over for a bit, and asked to see the governor again. I told him that I believed that I had a solution to his problem, he looked relieved and asked "Have you really?". I told him what I had read in the Torygraph, about the Hull Prison Special Unit experiment. And informed him that I knew the Governor at Hull Prison, Phil Wheatley, and to call him as I was sure he would have me. "That's a relief", he said, "because I fear for your safety if I am not able to move you". And, I had already come to the conclusion that to stay I would either kill again or someone would kill me.
I was pacing the cage, outside, when a small, bald headed chap, came up to the wire. He looked at me, then looked about, and said "You don't want to be doing this for the next 20 years do you?". "No", I replied, "not really". "Right, then, leave it to me", and with that he was gone, back to the Home Office. It is said, that the authorities don't strike deals with prisoners. Experience would suggest otherwise. I was selected, but it was against the wishes of the Hull branch of the POA. Phil Wheatley had instructed Dr Peter Bennett, that he wanted me, and to get me. Phil is a powerful man and tends to get what he wants. I wrote to him beforehand asking what he expected of me. He replied "No unwarranted violence". I thought there's trust for you, leaving it too me to decide what constituted warranted violence. As it happened, I never had to use violence again, but there were a few close scrapes, where I thought I hope the "Heavy Mob" gets here quick before I felt I had to start.
It was where the transformation from law breaker to law-maker began.
It's close, it's very close...
A source in London has informed me that it is close, very close. And, that the BBC was about to broadcast a story which the police intend to use as evidence in a prosecution. My source, reflected on Thatcher, and said that she was bad, but that this is worse, a lot worse. My source said, that we used to call Fleet Street the street of shame. Now it is Downing Street which is the street of shame. I find myself agreeing with my source who has close links with the BBC. Vivien Stern wrote a book about the prison system entitled Bricks of Shame. I think it is a shame for the Labour Party, those who are no way involved. And, a shame for the electorate who trusted the Tony Blair Mafia.
Perceptions.
I have just taken Rocky out for his afternoon walk. He keeps his nose to the ground, sniffing here, there, and everywhere. So interested is he in the scents, reading the messages, that he often does not see what is going on about him. For example, a black woman was coming out of a shop just as we were passing. The sudden movement of the door and her presence startled him, and he barks and lunges forward a bit. She jumps back as he startled her. She fears dogs, I sense that and so does Rocky. She mumbles something to the shopkeeper which I don't hear, but her look of protest is censuring me and she is looking for an explanation. I just tell her, in passing, "you startled him".
I get my Russian made but American brand cigarettes for £2.50 for 20, from a shop further down the road. The Chancellor is tax avoided. The shopkeepers here call me Mr Policeman. I get a warm welcome, "Hello Mr Policeman", it also warns the other shoppers of my presence. A while back, I opened my wallet to pay for my fags and they saw a business card with the Humberside Police badge on it, which a policeman had given me after a local yob had tried to show my neck how sharp the blade of his samurai sword was, and they had mistaken it for a warrant card. "No, no, we not sell you anymore" was their first response. As I was trying to explain to them what it was that they had seen, I saw someone passing by who knows the Russian/Latvian Mafia in Hull, and this person just said to the shopkeepers, "He's alright". So, now they think that I am a bent copper!
As we came back from Pearson Park, a group of black footballers were talking by a park bench. I had to watch Rocky carefully, sometimes he just wants to play football and at other times he takes exception to the studs in the boots and barks at the feet. Some of them moved away, and only two remained. Then another crossed the little path out of the way. I heard one say to the other as I passed, "That's the man I was telling you about". I did not ask why I was the topic of conversation. I preferred to think it was just to do with Rocky having met them before when he was in a less sociable mood.
Walking back along Pearson Avenue, I noticed a police van parked at the side of the road, and it appeared as though they were just studying their notebooks. They stared at me, and I saw that the female officer in the passenger seat had that 'I know that man' look on her face. But I was not the target of their attention. Across Beverley Road, I saw standing on the corner, a man with a serious look on his face, peering towards the city centre, and thought 'police'. Before I could cross, A police Volvo estate approached from the direction of the city centre, and the man signalled the driver to pull into the road I was about to walk down. He indicated towards a maroon Renault saloon, I had wondered why its driver's door was ajar when I passed it on my outward journey. The plain clothes officer was looking towards a house on Beverley Road where I had seen a couple of drug raids occur previously. I assumed that it was going to be another drugs bust.
When I got home, the police Volvo drove down to the entrance where I live and reversed in and pulled forward again doing a three point turn. Then it reversed again blocking the entrance, but from the road in front. I adjusted the switch on my CCTV to cover just the front of the house. 'Surely not', I thought, 'they haven't come to arrest me for daring to ignore the injunction?'. That would have been a big mistake. 'No', I reasoned 'the back of the alleged drug den was at the end of the cul-de-sac'. They were just covering all exits. Once I had seen a youthful girl scale the wall, run in front of my house and scale the other wall and disappear into the small park the other side. By the time two policemen ran into the cul-de-sac, looked around, and scratched their heads, she could have already been down Scully and away.
I get my Russian made but American brand cigarettes for £2.50 for 20, from a shop further down the road. The Chancellor is tax avoided. The shopkeepers here call me Mr Policeman. I get a warm welcome, "Hello Mr Policeman", it also warns the other shoppers of my presence. A while back, I opened my wallet to pay for my fags and they saw a business card with the Humberside Police badge on it, which a policeman had given me after a local yob had tried to show my neck how sharp the blade of his samurai sword was, and they had mistaken it for a warrant card. "No, no, we not sell you anymore" was their first response. As I was trying to explain to them what it was that they had seen, I saw someone passing by who knows the Russian/Latvian Mafia in Hull, and this person just said to the shopkeepers, "He's alright". So, now they think that I am a bent copper!
As we came back from Pearson Park, a group of black footballers were talking by a park bench. I had to watch Rocky carefully, sometimes he just wants to play football and at other times he takes exception to the studs in the boots and barks at the feet. Some of them moved away, and only two remained. Then another crossed the little path out of the way. I heard one say to the other as I passed, "That's the man I was telling you about". I did not ask why I was the topic of conversation. I preferred to think it was just to do with Rocky having met them before when he was in a less sociable mood.
Walking back along Pearson Avenue, I noticed a police van parked at the side of the road, and it appeared as though they were just studying their notebooks. They stared at me, and I saw that the female officer in the passenger seat had that 'I know that man' look on her face. But I was not the target of their attention. Across Beverley Road, I saw standing on the corner, a man with a serious look on his face, peering towards the city centre, and thought 'police'. Before I could cross, A police Volvo estate approached from the direction of the city centre, and the man signalled the driver to pull into the road I was about to walk down. He indicated towards a maroon Renault saloon, I had wondered why its driver's door was ajar when I passed it on my outward journey. The plain clothes officer was looking towards a house on Beverley Road where I had seen a couple of drug raids occur previously. I assumed that it was going to be another drugs bust.
When I got home, the police Volvo drove down to the entrance where I live and reversed in and pulled forward again doing a three point turn. Then it reversed again blocking the entrance, but from the road in front. I adjusted the switch on my CCTV to cover just the front of the house. 'Surely not', I thought, 'they haven't come to arrest me for daring to ignore the injunction?'. That would have been a big mistake. 'No', I reasoned 'the back of the alleged drug den was at the end of the cul-de-sac'. They were just covering all exits. Once I had seen a youthful girl scale the wall, run in front of my house and scale the other wall and disappear into the small park the other side. By the time two policemen ran into the cul-de-sac, looked around, and scratched their heads, she could have already been down Scully and away.
The Temple of Truth - The butterfly effect...
Some years ago, I wrote a poem entitled The Temple of Truth. It is situated at the crossroads. We are at a political crossroad now. It is a matter of public record which political direction I cast my vote at the last General Election. It is mentioned in Hansard, my local MP, Diana Johnson referred to it in her maiden speech. I thought long and hard before casting it. I even told Diana Johnson that I was bothered about the Iraq Question. But, I was also bothered about the damage caused by Thatcherism. Diana Johnson MP got my vote on the strength of her predecessor, Kevin MacNamarra, and a link going back to the Special Unit in HM Prison Hull.
Tony Blair took a gamble backing George W. Bush, and lost. He gambled on winning over the UN Security Council, and lost. He gambled on winning over the country, and lost. He threw it all away, this remains his legacy. Power is a wonderful thing, it can also be dangerous if used for the wrong reason and ends up backfiring.
Hands up all those in the House of Lords who bought their seats? Come on, don't be shy. It is a good thing to be honoured. But, to receive a honour for the right reason. Some years ago, someone I know was in a position to help me. But, then, he was cautioned that to do so might cost him his prospective MBE. He felt honoured by this award, but he knows and I know that it was gained at the price of human suffering. I am a poor man, but the promise that he would leave me some money in his will was no consolation. I had trusted him, and the selling me down the river was the real value. This is now on his conscience.
In prison, when you get 3 in a cell, personal experience has shown me that two gang up on the other. I call this the vicious triangle. It's not going to happen, but try and imagine what it would be like with Tony Blair, Lord Levy and Ruth Turner sharing a cell designed for one?
It is ironic that each Chief Inspector of Prisons has been chosen in the belief that he or she would turn a blind eye. Instead, it opened their eyes. If this was the purpose of appointing Commander Yates of the Yard to the cash for honours inquiry, instead of him turning a Nelsonian blind eye, they both boggled like Marty Feldman's at what he saw!
What is amazing is that, the political leader of the country lives at Number Ten Downing Street and Tony Blair was not aware of what was happening until the News At Ten on BBC1! We already know that Iain Dale's Diary is compulsory reading for politicians, let alone for those in the media, and Iain posted a short piece at 7.01pm, and he is 3,000 miles away in America. How much closer to Lord Goldsmith is Tony Blair? Of course, his good friend, suddenly becomes public spirited and says nowt! LOL. Where was this independence when it mattered most, on the advice that it was illegal to go to war with Iraq? So independent that he changed it to suit Tony Blair's plan to go to war anyway. And, what happened to the public interest then? We did not matter, we are all stupid, we would buy anything, even a dodgy dossier. Wrong! Besides, I already know that Lord Falconer is psychic. For example, he was telling the World At One what the judgment in the prisoners votes case was before the European Court of Human Rights had published it! All of a sudden his crystal ball had got cloudy? He was rendered speechless?
True, there have been occasions in the past when the media have published information which prejudiced a fair trial. However, in this case the public already know that seats in the House of Lords and Knighthoods have been sold. All the BBC sought to do was bring the public up to scratch with a recent development. The public have learned that truth no longer emanates from Number Ten, and hasn't since the time that bowler tampered with the cricket ball to deliver his brand of spin. We now have the absurd situation where Tony Blair is parodying Rory Bremner mimicing Tony Blair! The hands start to sleight, the eyes go to the left, the tongue licks the lips. One Foot in the Grave, springs to mind, "I don't believe it!". Do you? Peter and the Wolf also springs to mind.
Lord Chief Justice Woolf would have made a good Lord Chancellor. He has made a couple of decisions in court that I would question. But, anybody can make a mistake or two. I do not believe that he is corrupt. His appointment would have been on merit as opposed to the job going to a Tony Crony. This nepotism only leads to corruption.
A problem with the High Court "Protect the poor, defend the weak", in relation to Judicial Review, and it stems from a prison law case, following the Hull Prison riot in 1976, is that if anyone now wants to attack a public decision-maker, they must first seek permission from a judge to proceed. Whereas, in the US, any citizen can take the matter straight into court and the public authority has to defend the action. What can happen over here is that a judge acts as a goalkeeper for the government. That is, he or she reaches a political rather than a judicial decision. I am not saying that that is what the judge did in granting an injunction in this case. But, there is a legal principle and that is: "Not only must justice be done, it must manifestly be seen to be done". What was missing in this case, the public was excluded. Therefore, how can they see justice being done?
Part of democracy, is having a free press and an independent Judiciary. What have the government got to hide from us this time? The public need to scrutinise this very carefully, be very vigilant, and seek the accountability that the government has promised but failed to deliver on.
Tony Blair took a gamble backing George W. Bush, and lost. He gambled on winning over the UN Security Council, and lost. He gambled on winning over the country, and lost. He threw it all away, this remains his legacy. Power is a wonderful thing, it can also be dangerous if used for the wrong reason and ends up backfiring.
Hands up all those in the House of Lords who bought their seats? Come on, don't be shy. It is a good thing to be honoured. But, to receive a honour for the right reason. Some years ago, someone I know was in a position to help me. But, then, he was cautioned that to do so might cost him his prospective MBE. He felt honoured by this award, but he knows and I know that it was gained at the price of human suffering. I am a poor man, but the promise that he would leave me some money in his will was no consolation. I had trusted him, and the selling me down the river was the real value. This is now on his conscience.
In prison, when you get 3 in a cell, personal experience has shown me that two gang up on the other. I call this the vicious triangle. It's not going to happen, but try and imagine what it would be like with Tony Blair, Lord Levy and Ruth Turner sharing a cell designed for one?
It is ironic that each Chief Inspector of Prisons has been chosen in the belief that he or she would turn a blind eye. Instead, it opened their eyes. If this was the purpose of appointing Commander Yates of the Yard to the cash for honours inquiry, instead of him turning a Nelsonian blind eye, they both boggled like Marty Feldman's at what he saw!
What is amazing is that, the political leader of the country lives at Number Ten Downing Street and Tony Blair was not aware of what was happening until the News At Ten on BBC1! We already know that Iain Dale's Diary is compulsory reading for politicians, let alone for those in the media, and Iain posted a short piece at 7.01pm, and he is 3,000 miles away in America. How much closer to Lord Goldsmith is Tony Blair? Of course, his good friend, suddenly becomes public spirited and says nowt! LOL. Where was this independence when it mattered most, on the advice that it was illegal to go to war with Iraq? So independent that he changed it to suit Tony Blair's plan to go to war anyway. And, what happened to the public interest then? We did not matter, we are all stupid, we would buy anything, even a dodgy dossier. Wrong! Besides, I already know that Lord Falconer is psychic. For example, he was telling the World At One what the judgment in the prisoners votes case was before the European Court of Human Rights had published it! All of a sudden his crystal ball had got cloudy? He was rendered speechless?
True, there have been occasions in the past when the media have published information which prejudiced a fair trial. However, in this case the public already know that seats in the House of Lords and Knighthoods have been sold. All the BBC sought to do was bring the public up to scratch with a recent development. The public have learned that truth no longer emanates from Number Ten, and hasn't since the time that bowler tampered with the cricket ball to deliver his brand of spin. We now have the absurd situation where Tony Blair is parodying Rory Bremner mimicing Tony Blair! The hands start to sleight, the eyes go to the left, the tongue licks the lips. One Foot in the Grave, springs to mind, "I don't believe it!". Do you? Peter and the Wolf also springs to mind.
Lord Chief Justice Woolf would have made a good Lord Chancellor. He has made a couple of decisions in court that I would question. But, anybody can make a mistake or two. I do not believe that he is corrupt. His appointment would have been on merit as opposed to the job going to a Tony Crony. This nepotism only leads to corruption.
A problem with the High Court "Protect the poor, defend the weak", in relation to Judicial Review, and it stems from a prison law case, following the Hull Prison riot in 1976, is that if anyone now wants to attack a public decision-maker, they must first seek permission from a judge to proceed. Whereas, in the US, any citizen can take the matter straight into court and the public authority has to defend the action. What can happen over here is that a judge acts as a goalkeeper for the government. That is, he or she reaches a political rather than a judicial decision. I am not saying that that is what the judge did in granting an injunction in this case. But, there is a legal principle and that is: "Not only must justice be done, it must manifestly be seen to be done". What was missing in this case, the public was excluded. Therefore, how can they see justice being done?
Part of democracy, is having a free press and an independent Judiciary. What have the government got to hide from us this time? The public need to scrutinise this very carefully, be very vigilant, and seek the accountability that the government has promised but failed to deliver on.
Shouldn't the public get a rebate on the TV Licence fee when the BBC let's the public down?
This from Nick Robinson's (Not)Newslog. Give the man a banana from this banana republic for at least trying.
Strict limits
* Nick
* 2 Mar 07, 10:55 PM
It's been an interesting evening for lawyers - and a rather more frustrating one for journalists.
Lawyers representing the BBC and lawyers representing the Attorney General spent about two hours locked away at the Royal Courts of Justice this evening. The decision came about 21:00 - and that decision was an injunction, sought by the Attorney General, preventing the BBC from broadcasting an item it had planned to show tonight about the cash-for-honours investigation.
This will be baffling for the public, and I'm afraid I can't unbaffle many of you - there are strict limits on what we can say and report. But what we can say is that as far as we are aware, this is the first injunction that has been sought - and it is certainly the first successful one - in a long process of media reporting on this investigation.
A spokesman for the Attorney has said that the move was taken in response to a request from the Metropolitan Police, who were concerned that the disclosure of information contained in the story could have harmed their inquiry. The spokesman added that Lord Goldsmith - a member of the Cabinet - was acting independently of the Government in seeking the injunction.
Readers will know that there have been complaints from those involved in the investigation that there has been so much reporting - so much of what they refer to as speculation - during an ongoing police investigation. And while this injunction means that this particular news item cannot be broadcast, it's not yet clear what the implication is for any future broadcast.
PS: You may notice below that I've closed this post to comments. Sorry about that, but as I mentioned above, there are strict limits on what can be said.
Strict limits
* Nick
* 2 Mar 07, 10:55 PM
It's been an interesting evening for lawyers - and a rather more frustrating one for journalists.
Lawyers representing the BBC and lawyers representing the Attorney General spent about two hours locked away at the Royal Courts of Justice this evening. The decision came about 21:00 - and that decision was an injunction, sought by the Attorney General, preventing the BBC from broadcasting an item it had planned to show tonight about the cash-for-honours investigation.
This will be baffling for the public, and I'm afraid I can't unbaffle many of you - there are strict limits on what we can say and report. But what we can say is that as far as we are aware, this is the first injunction that has been sought - and it is certainly the first successful one - in a long process of media reporting on this investigation.
A spokesman for the Attorney has said that the move was taken in response to a request from the Metropolitan Police, who were concerned that the disclosure of information contained in the story could have harmed their inquiry. The spokesman added that Lord Goldsmith - a member of the Cabinet - was acting independently of the Government in seeking the injunction.
Readers will know that there have been complaints from those involved in the investigation that there has been so much reporting - so much of what they refer to as speculation - during an ongoing police investigation. And while this injunction means that this particular news item cannot be broadcast, it's not yet clear what the implication is for any future broadcast.
PS: You may notice below that I've closed this post to comments. Sorry about that, but as I mentioned above, there are strict limits on what can be said.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Exclusive: Ruth Turner to be charged.
Ruth Turner is to be charged by the police in relation to an email linked to the cash-for-honours inquiry. Earlier this evening, Iain Dale's Diary exclusively posted that there was a rumour that a injunction had been sought against the BBC preventing them from broadcasting this story. However, he then claims an exclusive which featured on the BBC Ten O' Clock News. Meanwhile, Guido merely posted a picture of a smoking gun, as though that gives anyone any information at all.
The Attorney General, the corrupt Lord Goldsmith, sought the injunction in the public interest. However, too frequently the government claims that it is acting in the public interest when in reality it is seeking to protect its own interest from political embarrassment. Had Lord Goldsmith not lost his integrity over the changed legal advice in relation to the Iraq war, I might of believed him. This reminds me of the attempt by Margaret Thatcher to ban Spycatcher.
Update: It is interesting to note that Iain Dale has removed the Ruth Turner label in his post, whereas Guido has added other names in addition to Ruth Turner. It is doubtful that Israel would have extradited Lord Levy, the subject of the email, if he had stayed there during his recent trip. What amazes me is that with so many lawyers involved, how did they manage not to notice that perverting the course of justice is a crime? Like a house of cards, pull one out and the others are likely to fall. I would have preferred it if the card had been an Ace, or a King, as opposed to a Queen.
The Attorney General, the corrupt Lord Goldsmith, sought the injunction in the public interest. However, too frequently the government claims that it is acting in the public interest when in reality it is seeking to protect its own interest from political embarrassment. Had Lord Goldsmith not lost his integrity over the changed legal advice in relation to the Iraq war, I might of believed him. This reminds me of the attempt by Margaret Thatcher to ban Spycatcher.
Update: It is interesting to note that Iain Dale has removed the Ruth Turner label in his post, whereas Guido has added other names in addition to Ruth Turner. It is doubtful that Israel would have extradited Lord Levy, the subject of the email, if he had stayed there during his recent trip. What amazes me is that with so many lawyers involved, how did they manage not to notice that perverting the course of justice is a crime? Like a house of cards, pull one out and the others are likely to fall. I would have preferred it if the card had been an Ace, or a King, as opposed to a Queen.
Evidence that Tony Blair is a wanker.
At the last Labour Party conference, Gordon Brown is seen to mouth the word "wanker" during Tony Blair's speech. I wonder if he had this image in his mind at the time?
Anti-Slavery March. And, has McCain had his chips?
Yesterday, a handful of protesters began a march from Hull to London. It is to mark the bicentennial of the abolishment of slavery, by William Wilberforce, Hull's most famous son. Whilst I agree that slavery is man's inhumanity towards man, I have a couple of issues. One of the people on the march told BBC Look North, that she was saying sorry for what had happened and that by going on this march she was putting right a historical wrong. I don't believe that saying sorry 200 years later, and going on a march eradicates this black mark in our history books. More recently, a million marched against the invasion of Iraq and it had no affect on the government.
I was slightly bemused to hear that Senator McCain had said sorry for stating that America had wasted the lives of its soldiers in Iraq, and that what he should have said was that they had sacrificed their lives. I cannot see anything wrong with stating that these lives were wasted, given that it is an illegal war. It is an unnecessary waste of lives. I cannot see how changing the term to sacrifice alters anything. It just made me think about leading lambs to the slaughter, sacrificial lambs.
The anti-slavery marchers are missing a vital point. In effect, slavery is still going on in Hull and the surrounding areas. I am referring to the grip that the Russian/Latvian Mafia has on Eastern Europeans migrants, who are paying to work and are not being paid for weeks at a time by firms such as M.H. Poskitt Ltd, in Goole. I am aware that DEFRA is investigating Poskitt's, however, as I understand it this is only in relation to the use of unsafe machinery. I would like to see these marchers picketing Poskitt's to bring public awareness to what is happening in our own backyard.
I was slightly bemused to hear that Senator McCain had said sorry for stating that America had wasted the lives of its soldiers in Iraq, and that what he should have said was that they had sacrificed their lives. I cannot see anything wrong with stating that these lives were wasted, given that it is an illegal war. It is an unnecessary waste of lives. I cannot see how changing the term to sacrifice alters anything. It just made me think about leading lambs to the slaughter, sacrificial lambs.
The anti-slavery marchers are missing a vital point. In effect, slavery is still going on in Hull and the surrounding areas. I am referring to the grip that the Russian/Latvian Mafia has on Eastern Europeans migrants, who are paying to work and are not being paid for weeks at a time by firms such as M.H. Poskitt Ltd, in Goole. I am aware that DEFRA is investigating Poskitt's, however, as I understand it this is only in relation to the use of unsafe machinery. I would like to see these marchers picketing Poskitt's to bring public awareness to what is happening in our own backyard.
Bob Piper eat your heart out as Hull City revealed its secret weapon.
Hull City v Birmingham City. Hull City mascot Roary the Tiger balances the ball on his nose during half time. Final score: Hull City 2 Birmingham 0
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Exclusive - Director General of Prison Service, Phil Wheatley's speech to the General Synod.
It gives me great honour to be able to publish, in full, to a wider audience, the following speech, given to a selective audience today.
ADDRESS TO THE GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
1 MARCH 2007
I thought the most useful contribution I could make to your debate was to:
give you some information about the make-up of the prison population;
explain what levels of overcrowding we are experiencing as we run the Prison Service near to maximum capacity and to comment on the effects of overcrowding and population pressure;
give a prison manager's perspective on the balance between punishment and rehabilitation while maintaining order and security and ensuring prison is a survivable experience.
Prison Population
I should make absolutely clear that I am not an expert on sentencing. I avoid public comment on the sentencing debate. Nearly three-quarters of the total of 66,000 sentenced prisoners are sentenced for offences of burglary, robbery, violence, sexual crime and drug offences (drug dealing rather than simple possession). 11% (8,800) are serving indeterminate sentences; just over 33% (26,000) have got determinate sentences of 4 years or over; and about 28% (22,500) are serving between 12 months and less than 4 years. 10% (7,900) are serving less than 12 months.
The 10% who are who are serving less than a year break down into 4 large offence groups - theft and handling (most commonly for shoplifting), violence against the person (most commonly actual bodily harm), a group of offences, including breaches of ASBO, affray, absconding from bail, provocation of violence and criminal damage, and finally a slightly smaller group for motoring offences (most commonly for driving whilst disqualified). The majority in all these groups are heavily convicted with more than 10 previous convictions. Less than 10% have less than 3 pre‑convictions.
I should draw Synod's attention to the increase in the number of indeterminate sentenced prisoners which is already much higher than any other European jurisdiction, and increasing at over 1,500 per year.
The rest of the prison population is made up of about 10% (8,200) awaiting trial and 6% (4,600) who are convicted and unsentenced.
In short, therefore, in the prison population of just under 80,000 prisoners, the vast majority of offenders are convicted and sentenced, more likely to be serving long sentences for very serious offences with only a minority sentenced for what might, at first sight, appear to be less serious offences and, in those cases, courts are only likely to have used custody if the offences are persistent.
The rate of overcrowding is the number of prisoners who are being required to share cells which were designed to hold a smaller number of people. Currently, approximately 24% of the population are held in these conditions. The number who are sharing is much higher because larger cells are certified to hold more than one prisoner without being overcrowded. Overall, about 40% of the population can expect to share a cell with another prisoner. Overcrowded conditions which amount to 2 people sharing a toilet are far from ideal. Prisoners do not get to select their companions and being locked up for two-thirds of every 24 hours in such enforced closeness to someone else is, for many prisoners, disturbing. Some prisoners, however, facing long periods of lock up, would prefer to share. The vast majority of cells now have, not only integral sanitation and a wash basin, but also in‑cell electricity and, for prisoners who are conforming and choose to pay a £1 a week, access to in‑cell TV and often a small kettle. It is still far from the lap of luxury.
Each prison has been assessed to ensure that the level of overcrowding in that prison does not exceed the level at which we can hold prisoners in a decent and humane fashion. The levels set by my Area Managers are the maximum capacity and we are not prepared to breach that capacity. In this way, we ensure that we do not go beyond the bounds of what is decent and lawful.
The problem for prisoners is not simply overcrowding, which is uncomfortable, but is the resulting restriction on regime caused by the increasing pressure of numbers. For example, with a limited number of education places; if the prison is absolutely full for each prisoner there is less chance of being allocated to education.
In order to use all the accommodation available, we have to move prisoners long distances. The prison estate has not been developed over the last 100 years in a way which best matches the needs and locations from which the current population comes. Frankly there are very few prisoners received directly from the area around Dartmoor and a similarly small number from the Isle of Sheppey or from Cumbria around Haverigg. Although we try to ensure that moves are not unnecessarily disruptive, keeping everywhere full involves short notice moves which do not always take account of the needs of prisoners. Though we try to ensure that they do not disrupt training courses and offending behaviour work. Such moves are most likely to affect short sentenced prisoners who, because of the pressure on the system, have the least access to interventions designed to reduce re‑offending.
Purposes of Prison
Turning from overcrowding to the purposes of imprisonment.
Prisons have a number of different and sometimes conflicting functions.
Punishment
Sir Alexander Patterson, one of my predecessors, said that punishment was the deprivation of liberty and that the prisons purpose was not to punish further. I think that approach obscures the complexity. Reducing the argument to absurdity would suggest that putting fence around a 5 star hotel and confining people to its luxurious facilities for the period of their sentence would be acceptable as a punishment. I do not think it would be. It would excite public outrage and derision. There is no doubt that the deprivation of liberty inherent in being confined is a substantial punishment but prisons are expected to provide facilities which are less generous than most members of society enjoy. Michael Howard, when Home Secretary, used the word "austere" to describe the imprisonment that he wished to create. Actually, austere describes rather well the conditions of imprisonment because under-pinning many decisions on prison administration has been a political judgement that prisoners should be seen to be comparatively deprived when compared with the rest of the population.
Punishment is therefore a legitimate part of our work and prisoners are sent to prison as a punishment and their conditions have to be seen by society as amounting to a punishment. Confinement within a perimeter, restricted contact with loved ones, adherence to a regular, but spartan regime, with no opportunity to use personal economic wealth to mitigate those austerities amount to a punishment.
It is a question of getting the balance right. Too austere a regime with too much emphasis on deprivation and punishment carries risk. The first Victorian prison in the new style, the model prison of Pentonville, which had a regime based on separation and religious contemplation with very little freedom of movement or social contact for prisoners produced, even for the Victorians, an unacceptable rate of mental breakdown. A regime that concentrated solely on punishment would be regarded by many of us as morally unacceptable and, on a purely practical note, is likely to embitter those subject to it and increase the risk of return to crime.
Rehabilitation
From the late 18th Century onwards, when imprisonment began to be used as the primary punishment, there was a belief that prisoners could be reformed or rehabilitated. The methods that have been used have varied. Early reformers believed in the power of discipline, order and religion. The Victorians added a practical emphasis on education and learning a trade. In the last century the borstal system was based on the public school with a house system, hard work, outward bound activities, team games and religion. In the post-war period, we recreated Army discipline with the introduction of detention centres. In the 1960s we moved towards group work and therapy. In the late 1970s, as a result of the increasing volume of research indicating treatment was unsuccessful, the pendulum swung towards humane containment. Only in the late 1980s, when large studies enabled criminologists for the first time to measure the small but positive effects of some interventions, did a belief in rehabilitation return.
That people do change their behaviour after being in prison is obviously true. Of those who come to prison, 34% do not re‑offend within 2 years of their release. The question is whether we can increase the proportion of prisoners who do not re‑offend. Measuring the results of our efforts in prison is not easy and requires at least a 2 year follow-up to get a robust result. The latest information, which draws on data from all the offenders who are released in the first quarter of each calendar year from 2000 up to 2003 is now suggesting positive results. The research examines the rate at which offenders are predicted to re‑offend and then compares the difference between that and the actual re‑conviction rate. The results since 2000 indicate that, for short term imprisonment (less than 12 months) the results have been slightly worse than the prediction. Short term imprisonment appears to make prisoners just over 1% more likely to be reconvicted than might otherwise have been expected. This is not entirely surprising; short term imprisonment normally involves confinement for very short periods in our most overcrowded and deprived prisons with little by way of interventions other than limited detoxification of those who had been using hard drugs. For those serving over 12 months but less than 2 years, there is a small, but important, treatment gain of just over 4%. In the 2-4 year group, this rises to slightly over 8% and for the 4 year and over group it goes up to 9%. The trend over time with all these treatment gains is upwards. However, the data is not so clear and unambiguous that anyone should jump to the conclusion that longer custodial sentences are better.
This is good news, and comes at a time when we in the Prison Service have been adopting what we would describe as a multi-modal approach to trying to reduce re‑offending. In other words, we try and address a variety of different needs and not rely on any single intervention to produce results. This has been possible as a result of increased Government investment in reducing re‑offending which has allowed us to do much more education, particularly targeting basic skills, better detoxification of drug users (as many as 60% of receptions have got a hard drug problem), improved health intervention with the National Health Service through Primary Care Trusts now commissioning health in prison with new money which has allowed much better provision. In the mental health field, Community Psychiatric Nurses now work alongside prison staff to improve both the diagnosis and treatment of offenders with mental health problems. New money has also improved the supply of cognitive behavioural programmes designed to improve prisoners' thinking ability including improved drug treatment provision in prison. These improvements have been accompanied by better work to link the inside to the outside with much greater emphasis on the practical elements of resettlement, finding a job and having somewhere decent to live. Great efforts have also gone into making sure that specialist treatment can be followed through in the community, particularly for those returning drug addicts going back into the community. Prisoners serving over a year get the benefit of probation supervision on release.
All these treatment measures have been accompanied by a drive to improve the quality of relationships between prison staff and prisoners. We know from detailed research done into the risk of suicide that the quality of relationships is crucial to preventing suicide and it seems likely that the same good relationships improve rehabilitation prospects. The Prison Service's decency agenda which addresses the quality of these relationships and the provision of a proper caring approach to those in prison is vital to the success of our work. It might, perhaps, best be seen as ensuring the soil in which interventions can grow and flourish is properly prepared and fertile.
Doing Time - Surviving Prison
We need to remind ourselves that prison has to be survivable if it is to be morally defensible. This is a real issue, given the increase in the number of long sentenced prisoners. The number of suicides is still significant, although the numbers are reducing. The 67 suicides last year, indicate that surviving imprisonment is a real matter of life and death. Doing long sentences is very difficult. To make prison bearable, we must ensure that there is sufficient variety of activity and sufficient social contact to enable the process of imprisonment to seem endurable. Time is always more bearable if there is a feeling of progress - things to be achieved and improvements secured. Education, provision for spiritual needs, the Arts, sport, ordinary social interaction are all necessary to give this sense of progress and variety.
Maintaining Order and Security
Prisons can only function effectively if they are able to maintain order and security. A prison which is insecure is effectively not a prison. Security can be achieved by physical barriers and restrictions which prevent access to escape equipment. It can also be achieved by gaining prisoners' acceptance that what is happening to them is fair, inevitable and not to be resisted. In practice, a combination of the two is what works to maintain security. In open prisons where, contrary to recent publicity, there is a falling abscond rate, now at its lowest level for at least 10 years, prisoners' willingness to accept their imprisonment is the main means of security. Whereas in high security prisons, there is a heavy reliance on security barriers, intensive surveillance, backed up by security procedures to prevent escape. There are tensions generated by security. Security can be intrusive, intensive searching which involves stripping prisoners and closely examining their belongings and property can be demeaning, while surveillance can mean that there is no privacy. The constant need for prison staff to question and to be alert and never to completely trust anyone can undermine the sort of relationships that are therapeutic. A compromise has to be struck which enables security to be maintained at an acceptable level but without unacceptable risks. Primarily this relies on having carefully thought through security arrangements which are designed to realistically match the degree of risk. Prisoners are carefully classified so that unnecessary security is not applied. Achieving this compromise is one of the most difficult parts of prison management. Our success in preventing escapes with one only escape from within prison so far this financial year and with a reduced suicide rate, suggests we are making this compromise successfully.
Just a word or two on order which is not the same as maintaining security. Keeping prisoners safe from each other ensuring that they co‑operate to achieve the smooth running of what are complicated institutions is not done by force of staff numbers. Typically, two officers supervise up to 50 prisoners unlocked in a medium-security establishment. Order depends upon good relationships between staff and prisoners, fair decisions about prisoners, clear boundaries in behaviour, with rewards for those who conform and effective intervention for those who do not. This is a positive approach to ensuring order, not one of standing back and leaving prisoners to get on with each other. If we are to persuade prisoners to become ex‑offenders, it is important that we ensure that criminal behaviour in prison, particularly use of drugs, is firmly controlled. With a falling drug use rate, measured by mandatory drug testing, and so far this year with no major loss of control in any of our establishments, I think we are getting this balance right.
Summary
In summary, prisons are under pressure, dealing with an increasingly long sentenced population, the majority in prison for serious offences. We have found ways to work with offenders which are reducing the risk of re‑offending, although we have not found a cure for crime and many prisoners will re‑offend. This good work is continuing in spite of pressure of population, and I am determined not to allow overcrowding to become so great that it prevents us continuing to do positive work or stops us treating prisoners decently and humanely.
ADDRESS TO THE GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
1 MARCH 2007
I thought the most useful contribution I could make to your debate was to:
give you some information about the make-up of the prison population;
explain what levels of overcrowding we are experiencing as we run the Prison Service near to maximum capacity and to comment on the effects of overcrowding and population pressure;
give a prison manager's perspective on the balance between punishment and rehabilitation while maintaining order and security and ensuring prison is a survivable experience.
Prison Population
I should make absolutely clear that I am not an expert on sentencing. I avoid public comment on the sentencing debate. Nearly three-quarters of the total of 66,000 sentenced prisoners are sentenced for offences of burglary, robbery, violence, sexual crime and drug offences (drug dealing rather than simple possession). 11% (8,800) are serving indeterminate sentences; just over 33% (26,000) have got determinate sentences of 4 years or over; and about 28% (22,500) are serving between 12 months and less than 4 years. 10% (7,900) are serving less than 12 months.
The 10% who are who are serving less than a year break down into 4 large offence groups - theft and handling (most commonly for shoplifting), violence against the person (most commonly actual bodily harm), a group of offences, including breaches of ASBO, affray, absconding from bail, provocation of violence and criminal damage, and finally a slightly smaller group for motoring offences (most commonly for driving whilst disqualified). The majority in all these groups are heavily convicted with more than 10 previous convictions. Less than 10% have less than 3 pre‑convictions.
I should draw Synod's attention to the increase in the number of indeterminate sentenced prisoners which is already much higher than any other European jurisdiction, and increasing at over 1,500 per year.
The rest of the prison population is made up of about 10% (8,200) awaiting trial and 6% (4,600) who are convicted and unsentenced.
In short, therefore, in the prison population of just under 80,000 prisoners, the vast majority of offenders are convicted and sentenced, more likely to be serving long sentences for very serious offences with only a minority sentenced for what might, at first sight, appear to be less serious offences and, in those cases, courts are only likely to have used custody if the offences are persistent.
The rate of overcrowding is the number of prisoners who are being required to share cells which were designed to hold a smaller number of people. Currently, approximately 24% of the population are held in these conditions. The number who are sharing is much higher because larger cells are certified to hold more than one prisoner without being overcrowded. Overall, about 40% of the population can expect to share a cell with another prisoner. Overcrowded conditions which amount to 2 people sharing a toilet are far from ideal. Prisoners do not get to select their companions and being locked up for two-thirds of every 24 hours in such enforced closeness to someone else is, for many prisoners, disturbing. Some prisoners, however, facing long periods of lock up, would prefer to share. The vast majority of cells now have, not only integral sanitation and a wash basin, but also in‑cell electricity and, for prisoners who are conforming and choose to pay a £1 a week, access to in‑cell TV and often a small kettle. It is still far from the lap of luxury.
Each prison has been assessed to ensure that the level of overcrowding in that prison does not exceed the level at which we can hold prisoners in a decent and humane fashion. The levels set by my Area Managers are the maximum capacity and we are not prepared to breach that capacity. In this way, we ensure that we do not go beyond the bounds of what is decent and lawful.
The problem for prisoners is not simply overcrowding, which is uncomfortable, but is the resulting restriction on regime caused by the increasing pressure of numbers. For example, with a limited number of education places; if the prison is absolutely full for each prisoner there is less chance of being allocated to education.
In order to use all the accommodation available, we have to move prisoners long distances. The prison estate has not been developed over the last 100 years in a way which best matches the needs and locations from which the current population comes. Frankly there are very few prisoners received directly from the area around Dartmoor and a similarly small number from the Isle of Sheppey or from Cumbria around Haverigg. Although we try to ensure that moves are not unnecessarily disruptive, keeping everywhere full involves short notice moves which do not always take account of the needs of prisoners. Though we try to ensure that they do not disrupt training courses and offending behaviour work. Such moves are most likely to affect short sentenced prisoners who, because of the pressure on the system, have the least access to interventions designed to reduce re‑offending.
Purposes of Prison
Turning from overcrowding to the purposes of imprisonment.
Prisons have a number of different and sometimes conflicting functions.
Punishment
Sir Alexander Patterson, one of my predecessors, said that punishment was the deprivation of liberty and that the prisons purpose was not to punish further. I think that approach obscures the complexity. Reducing the argument to absurdity would suggest that putting fence around a 5 star hotel and confining people to its luxurious facilities for the period of their sentence would be acceptable as a punishment. I do not think it would be. It would excite public outrage and derision. There is no doubt that the deprivation of liberty inherent in being confined is a substantial punishment but prisons are expected to provide facilities which are less generous than most members of society enjoy. Michael Howard, when Home Secretary, used the word "austere" to describe the imprisonment that he wished to create. Actually, austere describes rather well the conditions of imprisonment because under-pinning many decisions on prison administration has been a political judgement that prisoners should be seen to be comparatively deprived when compared with the rest of the population.
Punishment is therefore a legitimate part of our work and prisoners are sent to prison as a punishment and their conditions have to be seen by society as amounting to a punishment. Confinement within a perimeter, restricted contact with loved ones, adherence to a regular, but spartan regime, with no opportunity to use personal economic wealth to mitigate those austerities amount to a punishment.
It is a question of getting the balance right. Too austere a regime with too much emphasis on deprivation and punishment carries risk. The first Victorian prison in the new style, the model prison of Pentonville, which had a regime based on separation and religious contemplation with very little freedom of movement or social contact for prisoners produced, even for the Victorians, an unacceptable rate of mental breakdown. A regime that concentrated solely on punishment would be regarded by many of us as morally unacceptable and, on a purely practical note, is likely to embitter those subject to it and increase the risk of return to crime.
Rehabilitation
From the late 18th Century onwards, when imprisonment began to be used as the primary punishment, there was a belief that prisoners could be reformed or rehabilitated. The methods that have been used have varied. Early reformers believed in the power of discipline, order and religion. The Victorians added a practical emphasis on education and learning a trade. In the last century the borstal system was based on the public school with a house system, hard work, outward bound activities, team games and religion. In the post-war period, we recreated Army discipline with the introduction of detention centres. In the 1960s we moved towards group work and therapy. In the late 1970s, as a result of the increasing volume of research indicating treatment was unsuccessful, the pendulum swung towards humane containment. Only in the late 1980s, when large studies enabled criminologists for the first time to measure the small but positive effects of some interventions, did a belief in rehabilitation return.
That people do change their behaviour after being in prison is obviously true. Of those who come to prison, 34% do not re‑offend within 2 years of their release. The question is whether we can increase the proportion of prisoners who do not re‑offend. Measuring the results of our efforts in prison is not easy and requires at least a 2 year follow-up to get a robust result. The latest information, which draws on data from all the offenders who are released in the first quarter of each calendar year from 2000 up to 2003 is now suggesting positive results. The research examines the rate at which offenders are predicted to re‑offend and then compares the difference between that and the actual re‑conviction rate. The results since 2000 indicate that, for short term imprisonment (less than 12 months) the results have been slightly worse than the prediction. Short term imprisonment appears to make prisoners just over 1% more likely to be reconvicted than might otherwise have been expected. This is not entirely surprising; short term imprisonment normally involves confinement for very short periods in our most overcrowded and deprived prisons with little by way of interventions other than limited detoxification of those who had been using hard drugs. For those serving over 12 months but less than 2 years, there is a small, but important, treatment gain of just over 4%. In the 2-4 year group, this rises to slightly over 8% and for the 4 year and over group it goes up to 9%. The trend over time with all these treatment gains is upwards. However, the data is not so clear and unambiguous that anyone should jump to the conclusion that longer custodial sentences are better.
This is good news, and comes at a time when we in the Prison Service have been adopting what we would describe as a multi-modal approach to trying to reduce re‑offending. In other words, we try and address a variety of different needs and not rely on any single intervention to produce results. This has been possible as a result of increased Government investment in reducing re‑offending which has allowed us to do much more education, particularly targeting basic skills, better detoxification of drug users (as many as 60% of receptions have got a hard drug problem), improved health intervention with the National Health Service through Primary Care Trusts now commissioning health in prison with new money which has allowed much better provision. In the mental health field, Community Psychiatric Nurses now work alongside prison staff to improve both the diagnosis and treatment of offenders with mental health problems. New money has also improved the supply of cognitive behavioural programmes designed to improve prisoners' thinking ability including improved drug treatment provision in prison. These improvements have been accompanied by better work to link the inside to the outside with much greater emphasis on the practical elements of resettlement, finding a job and having somewhere decent to live. Great efforts have also gone into making sure that specialist treatment can be followed through in the community, particularly for those returning drug addicts going back into the community. Prisoners serving over a year get the benefit of probation supervision on release.
All these treatment measures have been accompanied by a drive to improve the quality of relationships between prison staff and prisoners. We know from detailed research done into the risk of suicide that the quality of relationships is crucial to preventing suicide and it seems likely that the same good relationships improve rehabilitation prospects. The Prison Service's decency agenda which addresses the quality of these relationships and the provision of a proper caring approach to those in prison is vital to the success of our work. It might, perhaps, best be seen as ensuring the soil in which interventions can grow and flourish is properly prepared and fertile.
Doing Time - Surviving Prison
We need to remind ourselves that prison has to be survivable if it is to be morally defensible. This is a real issue, given the increase in the number of long sentenced prisoners. The number of suicides is still significant, although the numbers are reducing. The 67 suicides last year, indicate that surviving imprisonment is a real matter of life and death. Doing long sentences is very difficult. To make prison bearable, we must ensure that there is sufficient variety of activity and sufficient social contact to enable the process of imprisonment to seem endurable. Time is always more bearable if there is a feeling of progress - things to be achieved and improvements secured. Education, provision for spiritual needs, the Arts, sport, ordinary social interaction are all necessary to give this sense of progress and variety.
Maintaining Order and Security
Prisons can only function effectively if they are able to maintain order and security. A prison which is insecure is effectively not a prison. Security can be achieved by physical barriers and restrictions which prevent access to escape equipment. It can also be achieved by gaining prisoners' acceptance that what is happening to them is fair, inevitable and not to be resisted. In practice, a combination of the two is what works to maintain security. In open prisons where, contrary to recent publicity, there is a falling abscond rate, now at its lowest level for at least 10 years, prisoners' willingness to accept their imprisonment is the main means of security. Whereas in high security prisons, there is a heavy reliance on security barriers, intensive surveillance, backed up by security procedures to prevent escape. There are tensions generated by security. Security can be intrusive, intensive searching which involves stripping prisoners and closely examining their belongings and property can be demeaning, while surveillance can mean that there is no privacy. The constant need for prison staff to question and to be alert and never to completely trust anyone can undermine the sort of relationships that are therapeutic. A compromise has to be struck which enables security to be maintained at an acceptable level but without unacceptable risks. Primarily this relies on having carefully thought through security arrangements which are designed to realistically match the degree of risk. Prisoners are carefully classified so that unnecessary security is not applied. Achieving this compromise is one of the most difficult parts of prison management. Our success in preventing escapes with one only escape from within prison so far this financial year and with a reduced suicide rate, suggests we are making this compromise successfully.
Just a word or two on order which is not the same as maintaining security. Keeping prisoners safe from each other ensuring that they co‑operate to achieve the smooth running of what are complicated institutions is not done by force of staff numbers. Typically, two officers supervise up to 50 prisoners unlocked in a medium-security establishment. Order depends upon good relationships between staff and prisoners, fair decisions about prisoners, clear boundaries in behaviour, with rewards for those who conform and effective intervention for those who do not. This is a positive approach to ensuring order, not one of standing back and leaving prisoners to get on with each other. If we are to persuade prisoners to become ex‑offenders, it is important that we ensure that criminal behaviour in prison, particularly use of drugs, is firmly controlled. With a falling drug use rate, measured by mandatory drug testing, and so far this year with no major loss of control in any of our establishments, I think we are getting this balance right.
Summary
In summary, prisons are under pressure, dealing with an increasingly long sentenced population, the majority in prison for serious offences. We have found ways to work with offenders which are reducing the risk of re‑offending, although we have not found a cure for crime and many prisoners will re‑offend. This good work is continuing in spite of pressure of population, and I am determined not to allow overcrowding to become so great that it prevents us continuing to do positive work or stops us treating prisoners decently and humanely.
Even more common sense - judge attacks victim impact statements
The whole point of having a doctrine of Separation of Powers, is that it provides balances and checks between the Executive, Judiciary and Parliament, to prevent abuses of power. What we have seen happening under New Labour is the Executive encroaching into the territory of the Judiciary. Knee-jerkism from the Home Office as it responds to the headlines and editorials of The Sun. In its attempt to placate victims of crime, the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs have victimised offenders and prisoners.
It is the judge's role to judge what is the appropriate sentencing decision to make in any given case. It is not part of a judge's role to pander to the whims of politicians. As judge John Samuels points out, justice is about being dispassionate and not allowing emotions to cloud the issues. In my view, judges should rebel and refuse to allow victim statement's any right of audience in any court.
It is a shame that Harriet Harman has sold out her principles of integrity since she became part of New Labour's legal machinery. She used to be a staunch advocate of prisoners rights. It is true that power corrupts. Judge John Samuels should be praised for his correcting the scales of justice which the DCA has imbalanced with its grubby finger.
It is the judge's role to judge what is the appropriate sentencing decision to make in any given case. It is not part of a judge's role to pander to the whims of politicians. As judge John Samuels points out, justice is about being dispassionate and not allowing emotions to cloud the issues. In my view, judges should rebel and refuse to allow victim statement's any right of audience in any court.
It is a shame that Harriet Harman has sold out her principles of integrity since she became part of New Labour's legal machinery. She used to be a staunch advocate of prisoners rights. It is true that power corrupts. Judge John Samuels should be praised for his correcting the scales of justice which the DCA has imbalanced with its grubby finger.
Common sense prevails
From Times Online
March 01, 2007
Hunger strike Eta prisoner released from hospital custody
Inaki de Juana Chaos
Thomas Catán, Madrid and Devika Bhat
An Eta prisoner on hunger-strike for 114 days has been released from a hospital in Madrid and taken to a clinic in the Basque region, The Times has been told, in what is understood to be the first step to allowing him to serve the rest of his sentence at home under police supervision.
Iñaki De Juana Chaos, one of the Basque separatist group's most notorious killers, was taken by ambulance to a hospital close to the Basque city of San Sebastian, according to local media reports.
He is then expected to be put under house arrest to serve the last year of his sentence for making threats at home under police supervision, having already completed an 18-year sentence for heading a cell responsible for killing 25 soldiers and policemen in the 1980s.
The decision to free de Juana Chaos is likely to spark uproar among victims of the armed Basque separatist group. More than 75,000 people held a rally in Madrid last weekend to demand his continued imprisonment. Several people were injured when a rival rally in Bilbao by his supporters was broken up by riot police.
Background
* Eta killer's deathbed plea for peace
* Madrid’s Dilemma
* Uproar over early release for Eta hunger-striker
Supporters of De Juana Chaos said yesterday that he could no longer stand and would enter a coma if his blood sugar dropped any lower. They said he had managed to rip-out his feeding tube three times on Tuesday, as prison authorities struggled to replace it.
Senior figures from the ruling Socialist Party have apparently been laying the groundwork for his release for days, saying that allowing him to die would merely hand Eta a “martyr”.
“There are many people around (De Juana Chaos) that hope he dies,” said José Blanco, the Socialist Party secretary. “I don’t wish anyone to die, I have a respect for life that terrorists do not.”
The leader of the Opposition Popular Party, Mariano Rajoy, said that “the worst possible scenario” in the case was for the Government to “cede to the blackmail of terrorists”. He said that tens, or hundreds of other Eta prisoners could follow suit.
March 01, 2007
Hunger strike Eta prisoner released from hospital custody
Inaki de Juana Chaos
Thomas Catán, Madrid and Devika Bhat
An Eta prisoner on hunger-strike for 114 days has been released from a hospital in Madrid and taken to a clinic in the Basque region, The Times has been told, in what is understood to be the first step to allowing him to serve the rest of his sentence at home under police supervision.
Iñaki De Juana Chaos, one of the Basque separatist group's most notorious killers, was taken by ambulance to a hospital close to the Basque city of San Sebastian, according to local media reports.
He is then expected to be put under house arrest to serve the last year of his sentence for making threats at home under police supervision, having already completed an 18-year sentence for heading a cell responsible for killing 25 soldiers and policemen in the 1980s.
The decision to free de Juana Chaos is likely to spark uproar among victims of the armed Basque separatist group. More than 75,000 people held a rally in Madrid last weekend to demand his continued imprisonment. Several people were injured when a rival rally in Bilbao by his supporters was broken up by riot police.
Background
* Eta killer's deathbed plea for peace
* Madrid’s Dilemma
* Uproar over early release for Eta hunger-striker
Supporters of De Juana Chaos said yesterday that he could no longer stand and would enter a coma if his blood sugar dropped any lower. They said he had managed to rip-out his feeding tube three times on Tuesday, as prison authorities struggled to replace it.
Senior figures from the ruling Socialist Party have apparently been laying the groundwork for his release for days, saying that allowing him to die would merely hand Eta a “martyr”.
“There are many people around (De Juana Chaos) that hope he dies,” said José Blanco, the Socialist Party secretary. “I don’t wish anyone to die, I have a respect for life that terrorists do not.”
The leader of the Opposition Popular Party, Mariano Rajoy, said that “the worst possible scenario” in the case was for the Government to “cede to the blackmail of terrorists”. He said that tens, or hundreds of other Eta prisoners could follow suit.
God's Truth! You don't say? Well, I never!
It has been reported that Jesus has been found dead in his grave. Under the circumstances, I am not surprised by this finding. It would have been a miracle, indeed, had he been found alive in his grave. No doubt Scotland Yard will be offering its services to determine whether he died of natural causes, or whether foul play is suspected. Police will not confirm whether the remains of a crashed light aircraft, found close by, belonged to Ponshush Pilot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)