Human rights attack
From: Paul Sullivan – London
A retiring Law Lord has made a scathing attack on the European Court of Human Rights. Lord Hoffmann lamented how the Court had ‘found against Britain’. Whilst stating that he supported the ECHR, he did not think it should interfere with domestic law.
Having lost a few judgments to the Court over the years, Lord Hoffmann and his associates are probably smarting over the hole they have dug themselves into trying to prevent British prisoners exercising their right to vote; an issue which could well have created a situation where the next election might have been invalid.
Most of the improvements to prisoners’ welfare and conditions over recent years have been hard won in Europe by prisoners and former prisoners such as John Hirst determined to improve their lot and enforce their rights. British judges, so entangled with their paymasters and employers (the Government), have continually let down prisoners and their families, and it is a sad reflection on 20th Century Britain that we need to have proper justice and upholding of our rights demonstrated to us by what Lord Hoffmann haughtily describes as “… dozens of highly paid ’judges’ from countries like Bulgaria, Russia and Romania, which have almost no rule of law themselves. These upstart briefs consider it a good day’s work to overrule the democratically passed laws of ancient States like Britain.”
Of course, with nearly 90,000 disenfranchised prisoners, it could be argued that our laws are not democratic. The Judges and Law Lords are appointed by the Government, so they hardly have an incentive to bite the hand that feeds them.
Lord Hoffmann himself sat on several important cases in the House of Lords, including the Belmarsh Terrorism case which ruled that ‘detention without trial’ laws had been imposed unfairly. He said, "The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these."
It is easy to denigrate the European Court and make fun of its jurisdiction, its decisions and its member states, however if it has done nothing else it has made British politicians stop and think, and forced them to act in a way that is fair and not just convenient to the Government.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
Site Meter
Thursday, May 07, 2009
The tide is turning
The tide is turning
By: Enver Solomon
America is the world’s highest incarcerator of people in prison but hard financial times are now causing the US to close prisons. Enver Solomon urges the UK Government to do the same
Out of a crisis often comes unexpected opportunity. In America, where one in every 33 adults is incarcerated or on parole, the economic recession is leading to the closure of prisons and a reduction in prison budgets that have ballooned in recent years. The world’s highest incarcerator is finding that hard financial times are the best chance to try to curb its addiction to prison.
A number of states have decided to consolidate operations and simply close down prisons. Colorado, Kansas, Michigan and New Jersey have all shut down or announced the closing of at least one jail. Despite opposition from powerful vested interests and communities that want to protect employment opportunities, these states have concluded that locking up so many adults is simply financially unsustainable. As J. Michael Brown, the secretary of the State Justice and Public Safety Cabinet in Kentucky, a part of America that is not known for being soft on crime, told journalists, the brutal reality is that when ‘dollars get scarce, it forces a tremendous amount of scrutiny’.
Even the tough talking Republican governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has called for $400 million (£268.5 million) to be cut from the state’s corrections budget, which in recent years has grown larger than the state’s education budget. California’s jails are overflowing and the money has run out leaving Schwarzenegger, who has long opposed any change in prisons policy, with no option but to think again. Nearly all prisoners serve long periods of parole in California, regardless of the severity of their offence. Many revolve in and out of custody as a result of punitive parole conditions but now the governor has finally acknowledged that his policies fail to rehabilitate offenders. As a first step, officials are seeking to divert more drug offenders into treatment.
In recent years, criminal justice budgets across America have grown at a phenomenal rate. An analysis published earlier this year found that in the past twenty years, budgets have quadrupled and are outpacing every major spending area outside of health care. States spend on average nearly six per cent of their total annual expenditure on prisons and probation, which in 2008 amounted to a total of $48 billion (£32.2 billion).
The most common cost saving trend among prison and probation departments has been to look at parole systems. Overall, far more prisoners are required to serve parole in America than in England and Wales. Rather than taking a strict prescribed approach to parole violations (something that has become increasingly common in the UK) states are adopting new programmes that seek to assess offenders’ risks and needs and then support compliance.
Several states are also looking at sentencing reform. In New York state for example, Democrat Governor David A Paterson has taken the bold step of proposing an overhaul of the so-called Rockefeller drug laws that impose lengthy mandatory sentences on many non-violent drug offenders. There is a good chance that the law will finally be repealed as politicians from both Democrat and Republican sides increasingly acknowledge that there are thousands of people behind bars who don’t need to be there.
The reform agenda is also finding a voice in Congress in Washington. A bill has been introduced in the upper house, the Senate, by Virginia Democrat Jim Webb proposing the creation of a national commission to review the criminal justice system, with a particular focus on sentencing and the use of custody. The proposed legislation has bi-partisan support from Senators including senior Republicans. It will require equal support from politicians in the lower House of Representatives if it is to stand any chance of legislative success, but for now there is clearly a national consensus emerging that the endless prison building of recent decades needs to stop.
Whilst there are promising signs that the hard line on the use of prisons for adults is being relaxed, the incarceration of juveniles has already been subject to progressive reform in many states. Policies have been implemented to divert children who have committed minor offences from prosecution, to dramatically reduce the numbers held in custody awaiting trial and to set up evidence based alternatives to custody. In New York state, three juvenile detention centres have been closed and in Illinois the number of children in custody has been cut by a third in the last ten years. Meanwhile in Washington DC a former prison reformer who is in charge of the capital’s juvenile justice system has embarked on a radical reform agenda. Vincent Schiraldi’s vision is to have a relatively small number of children held in secure units that have a treatment focus rather than a punishment ethos.
There are of course still plenty of examples of tough law and order policies to be found across the United States but for now, at least, the tide does appear to be turning in many parts of the country. There are no signs yet of this happening in the same way in England and Wales. Perhaps as fiscal belts are tightened even further in the months ahead, politicians from all parties, who have often looked across the Atlantic for policy ideas, will take note of the new approach to prison reform that is unfolding across America.
Enver Solomon is deputy director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King’s College London. He is currently coming to the end of a 12 month leave of absence in Boston, USA.
By: Enver Solomon
America is the world’s highest incarcerator of people in prison but hard financial times are now causing the US to close prisons. Enver Solomon urges the UK Government to do the same
Out of a crisis often comes unexpected opportunity. In America, where one in every 33 adults is incarcerated or on parole, the economic recession is leading to the closure of prisons and a reduction in prison budgets that have ballooned in recent years. The world’s highest incarcerator is finding that hard financial times are the best chance to try to curb its addiction to prison.
A number of states have decided to consolidate operations and simply close down prisons. Colorado, Kansas, Michigan and New Jersey have all shut down or announced the closing of at least one jail. Despite opposition from powerful vested interests and communities that want to protect employment opportunities, these states have concluded that locking up so many adults is simply financially unsustainable. As J. Michael Brown, the secretary of the State Justice and Public Safety Cabinet in Kentucky, a part of America that is not known for being soft on crime, told journalists, the brutal reality is that when ‘dollars get scarce, it forces a tremendous amount of scrutiny’.
Even the tough talking Republican governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has called for $400 million (£268.5 million) to be cut from the state’s corrections budget, which in recent years has grown larger than the state’s education budget. California’s jails are overflowing and the money has run out leaving Schwarzenegger, who has long opposed any change in prisons policy, with no option but to think again. Nearly all prisoners serve long periods of parole in California, regardless of the severity of their offence. Many revolve in and out of custody as a result of punitive parole conditions but now the governor has finally acknowledged that his policies fail to rehabilitate offenders. As a first step, officials are seeking to divert more drug offenders into treatment.
In recent years, criminal justice budgets across America have grown at a phenomenal rate. An analysis published earlier this year found that in the past twenty years, budgets have quadrupled and are outpacing every major spending area outside of health care. States spend on average nearly six per cent of their total annual expenditure on prisons and probation, which in 2008 amounted to a total of $48 billion (£32.2 billion).
The most common cost saving trend among prison and probation departments has been to look at parole systems. Overall, far more prisoners are required to serve parole in America than in England and Wales. Rather than taking a strict prescribed approach to parole violations (something that has become increasingly common in the UK) states are adopting new programmes that seek to assess offenders’ risks and needs and then support compliance.
Several states are also looking at sentencing reform. In New York state for example, Democrat Governor David A Paterson has taken the bold step of proposing an overhaul of the so-called Rockefeller drug laws that impose lengthy mandatory sentences on many non-violent drug offenders. There is a good chance that the law will finally be repealed as politicians from both Democrat and Republican sides increasingly acknowledge that there are thousands of people behind bars who don’t need to be there.
The reform agenda is also finding a voice in Congress in Washington. A bill has been introduced in the upper house, the Senate, by Virginia Democrat Jim Webb proposing the creation of a national commission to review the criminal justice system, with a particular focus on sentencing and the use of custody. The proposed legislation has bi-partisan support from Senators including senior Republicans. It will require equal support from politicians in the lower House of Representatives if it is to stand any chance of legislative success, but for now there is clearly a national consensus emerging that the endless prison building of recent decades needs to stop.
Whilst there are promising signs that the hard line on the use of prisons for adults is being relaxed, the incarceration of juveniles has already been subject to progressive reform in many states. Policies have been implemented to divert children who have committed minor offences from prosecution, to dramatically reduce the numbers held in custody awaiting trial and to set up evidence based alternatives to custody. In New York state, three juvenile detention centres have been closed and in Illinois the number of children in custody has been cut by a third in the last ten years. Meanwhile in Washington DC a former prison reformer who is in charge of the capital’s juvenile justice system has embarked on a radical reform agenda. Vincent Schiraldi’s vision is to have a relatively small number of children held in secure units that have a treatment focus rather than a punishment ethos.
There are of course still plenty of examples of tough law and order policies to be found across the United States but for now, at least, the tide does appear to be turning in many parts of the country. There are no signs yet of this happening in the same way in England and Wales. Perhaps as fiscal belts are tightened even further in the months ahead, politicians from all parties, who have often looked across the Atlantic for policy ideas, will take note of the new approach to prison reform that is unfolding across America.
Enver Solomon is deputy director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King’s College London. He is currently coming to the end of a 12 month leave of absence in Boston, USA.
The real cost of prison
The real cost of prison
By: Kevin Marsh
In 1993, the UK prison population was 51,880. Today it is over 92,400. This trend is set to continue: the government has recently announced an extra £3.8bn to create 20,000 more prison places
In the UK it is estimated that each new prison place costs £119,000 and that the annual average cost for each prisoner exceeds £40,000. Such huge public expenditure should not be spent without question. But where value for money models are widely applied in other state services like healthcare, they have rarely been used to test the value of the criminal justice sector.
An economic approach to assessing the value for money of prison would involve comparing the cost of prison against its benefits. The latter comprise four different effects: the reduced offending as a consequence of incarcerating offenders, rehabilitating offenders, deterring offending, and the value of the sense of justice associated with punishing offenders.
It is reasonable to presume that prison costs more than community-based alternatives. Does this extra cost represent good value for money? Is this higher cost justified by the effect of prison in reducing offending, as well as the possibility that a greater sense of justice may be associated with punitive sentences?
These are the questions Matrix Knowledge Group sought to address in a number of recent pieces of research.
The first of these, The Economic Case For and Against Prison, compared the cost of prison against its rehabilitative and incapacitation effects on re-offending. Using data from the US and the UK from 1996, we measured the net benefit of alternatives to prison. The result? Alternatives to prison seem to deliver a better return on public money.
Residential drug treatment programmes, for example, offer a £200,000 net benefit over prison over the lifetime of an offender. This is because drug treatment programmes are cheaper to run than incarceration systems and because they deliver lower re-offending rates. Similarly, using surveillance instead of cells saves the taxpayer £45,000 per convict.
This research could be used to argue that we simply have to reduce the cost of prison per prisoner to make it deliver value for money. If we cut corners and McDonald's-ise our cells, wouldn't prisons then deliver value for money? Our research suggests not. Investing more in prisons per head actually delivers increased savings in the long run. Because of associated reductions in re-offending rates, prisons which include educational and vocational programmes save society £70,000 for each inmate whilst prison with drug treatment saves £110,000.
The Economic Case For and Against Prison focused on two of the four effects of prison – the reduction in offending associated with incapacitating and rehabilitating offenders. Focusing on just these effects, the research suggests that prison does not represent good value for money. However, this analysis excludes the deterrent effect and justice value associated with prison. Would prison be considered value for money if these effects were included in the analysis?
In a recent article I published in the Howard Journal, in collaboration with Chris Fox of Manchester Metropolitan University and Carol Hedderman of Leicester University, searched the existing evidence base to attempt to answer these questions. The deterrent effect of prison has been the subject of a number of research studies.
However, the findings of these studies are inconclusive. Some studies identify a deterrent effect, while other studies fail to identify an effect. To some extent these differences rest on complicated statistical matters.
However, the jury is still out regarding whether prison has a deterrent effect. Our review only identified one study that could be used to estimate the economic value of the justice associated with a prison sentence. Daniel Nagin, an economist in the US, assessed people’s willingness to pay to fund the provision of two sentence types that produced exactly the same offending outcomes: a two year prison sentence for drug using offenders, and a one year prison sentence with a rehabilitative treatment programme for drug using offenders. He found that people attached a greater value to the rehabilitative programme than the more punitive sentence.
One interpretation of this result is that people value punitive less than rehabilitation. However, much more research is required before this conclusion can be made with any certainty.
The debate for and against prisons has historically focused on the moral, political and social arguments for sentencing. But public money is scarce; we need to make sure that the benefits of our prisons outweigh their costs. Whatever penal policy we decide to pursue, ignoring the economic dimension to this argument is something we can no longer afford to do. The current research suggests that prison is not an efficient use of public resources.
However, further work is required to fill the gaps in the evidence base and to determine in which circumstances and for which offenders prison is and is not value for money.
Kevin Marsh is Head of Economic Evaluation at Matrix Knowledge Group
By: Kevin Marsh
In 1993, the UK prison population was 51,880. Today it is over 92,400. This trend is set to continue: the government has recently announced an extra £3.8bn to create 20,000 more prison places
In the UK it is estimated that each new prison place costs £119,000 and that the annual average cost for each prisoner exceeds £40,000. Such huge public expenditure should not be spent without question. But where value for money models are widely applied in other state services like healthcare, they have rarely been used to test the value of the criminal justice sector.
An economic approach to assessing the value for money of prison would involve comparing the cost of prison against its benefits. The latter comprise four different effects: the reduced offending as a consequence of incarcerating offenders, rehabilitating offenders, deterring offending, and the value of the sense of justice associated with punishing offenders.
It is reasonable to presume that prison costs more than community-based alternatives. Does this extra cost represent good value for money? Is this higher cost justified by the effect of prison in reducing offending, as well as the possibility that a greater sense of justice may be associated with punitive sentences?
These are the questions Matrix Knowledge Group sought to address in a number of recent pieces of research.
The first of these, The Economic Case For and Against Prison, compared the cost of prison against its rehabilitative and incapacitation effects on re-offending. Using data from the US and the UK from 1996, we measured the net benefit of alternatives to prison. The result? Alternatives to prison seem to deliver a better return on public money.
Residential drug treatment programmes, for example, offer a £200,000 net benefit over prison over the lifetime of an offender. This is because drug treatment programmes are cheaper to run than incarceration systems and because they deliver lower re-offending rates. Similarly, using surveillance instead of cells saves the taxpayer £45,000 per convict.
This research could be used to argue that we simply have to reduce the cost of prison per prisoner to make it deliver value for money. If we cut corners and McDonald's-ise our cells, wouldn't prisons then deliver value for money? Our research suggests not. Investing more in prisons per head actually delivers increased savings in the long run. Because of associated reductions in re-offending rates, prisons which include educational and vocational programmes save society £70,000 for each inmate whilst prison with drug treatment saves £110,000.
The Economic Case For and Against Prison focused on two of the four effects of prison – the reduction in offending associated with incapacitating and rehabilitating offenders. Focusing on just these effects, the research suggests that prison does not represent good value for money. However, this analysis excludes the deterrent effect and justice value associated with prison. Would prison be considered value for money if these effects were included in the analysis?
In a recent article I published in the Howard Journal, in collaboration with Chris Fox of Manchester Metropolitan University and Carol Hedderman of Leicester University, searched the existing evidence base to attempt to answer these questions. The deterrent effect of prison has been the subject of a number of research studies.
However, the findings of these studies are inconclusive. Some studies identify a deterrent effect, while other studies fail to identify an effect. To some extent these differences rest on complicated statistical matters.
However, the jury is still out regarding whether prison has a deterrent effect. Our review only identified one study that could be used to estimate the economic value of the justice associated with a prison sentence. Daniel Nagin, an economist in the US, assessed people’s willingness to pay to fund the provision of two sentence types that produced exactly the same offending outcomes: a two year prison sentence for drug using offenders, and a one year prison sentence with a rehabilitative treatment programme for drug using offenders. He found that people attached a greater value to the rehabilitative programme than the more punitive sentence.
One interpretation of this result is that people value punitive less than rehabilitation. However, much more research is required before this conclusion can be made with any certainty.
The debate for and against prisons has historically focused on the moral, political and social arguments for sentencing. But public money is scarce; we need to make sure that the benefits of our prisons outweigh their costs. Whatever penal policy we decide to pursue, ignoring the economic dimension to this argument is something we can no longer afford to do. The current research suggests that prison is not an efficient use of public resources.
However, further work is required to fill the gaps in the evidence base and to determine in which circumstances and for which offenders prison is and is not value for money.
Kevin Marsh is Head of Economic Evaluation at Matrix Knowledge Group
InsideInformation - the new website
InsideInformation - the new website
By: Inside Time
On the 1st June an exciting new extension to www.insidetime.org will go live
Visitors to this new area of the website, be they families, friends of people in prison, legal representatives or one of the thousands of people working in the field of penal affairs, will be able to find everything they need to know about every prison in the UK. The main sections will include:
* Booking and full travel information, the facilities available to visitors plus the regime and all that is available for prisoners.
* Details of all the help organisations. Help for prisoners whilst in custody, those recently released plus all the support that is available for prisoners’ families.
* Understanding Prison Law and a Glossary of Terms.
* The Prisoner Funder Directory, produced by the Hardman Trust, enabling families and friends of prisoners to help source the financial assistance prisoners need in order to fund the extra things they may require to improve their chances on release.
* Resettlement organisations around the country and everything that resettlement units need to know about specific areas. This will follow a little later and be accessible for research on behalf of prisoners approaching their release dates. Housing, employment, training, education and the many other types of support needed will be displayed and regularly updated.
We are in the process of contacting all help organisations around the country gathering information about their services. Advertising for them is free of charge and together with a link to their own website will be included.
Legal firms who advertise with Inside Time and other specialists offering services will also be promoted free of charge on the site and a special search facility will list all geographically and by their specialist services. Input forms are being sent out to all advertisers and help organisations will be contacted soon if they have not already heard from us.
Insideinformation - the new guidebook
As soon as the online service is live and fully operational a printed version of insideinformation will be published as a guidebook. It will be provided free of charge to all prison libraries throughout the UK and made available to everyone else at cost.
There will be free adverts and an alphabetical listing for all those who advertise in Inside Time as a ‘thank you’ for their continued and loyal support.
The launch of the first edition, the 2009/10 Guidebook, will be announced very soon and advice as to when readers can expect them to arrive in all prison libraries.
The design and content of insideinformation has been largely driven by the input of two former prisoners, one male one female, and their family members who visited them whilst they were in prison. They are now employed by Inside Time and will be updating the online content on a three monthly cycle putting together each annual edition of the guidebook that will be supplied free of charge to all prison libraries.
insideinformation is another ‘not for profit’ service provided by Inside Time Limited.
For more information contact enquiries@insidetime.org
Comment: I suspect that Mark Leech will not be too pleased as the success of Inside Time looks secure whereas the future of ConVerse and The Prisoners Handbook looks less certain. Retirement to Thailand might appear to be a good option...
By: Inside Time
On the 1st June an exciting new extension to www.insidetime.org will go live
Visitors to this new area of the website, be they families, friends of people in prison, legal representatives or one of the thousands of people working in the field of penal affairs, will be able to find everything they need to know about every prison in the UK. The main sections will include:
* Booking and full travel information, the facilities available to visitors plus the regime and all that is available for prisoners.
* Details of all the help organisations. Help for prisoners whilst in custody, those recently released plus all the support that is available for prisoners’ families.
* Understanding Prison Law and a Glossary of Terms.
* The Prisoner Funder Directory, produced by the Hardman Trust, enabling families and friends of prisoners to help source the financial assistance prisoners need in order to fund the extra things they may require to improve their chances on release.
* Resettlement organisations around the country and everything that resettlement units need to know about specific areas. This will follow a little later and be accessible for research on behalf of prisoners approaching their release dates. Housing, employment, training, education and the many other types of support needed will be displayed and regularly updated.
We are in the process of contacting all help organisations around the country gathering information about their services. Advertising for them is free of charge and together with a link to their own website will be included.
Legal firms who advertise with Inside Time and other specialists offering services will also be promoted free of charge on the site and a special search facility will list all geographically and by their specialist services. Input forms are being sent out to all advertisers and help organisations will be contacted soon if they have not already heard from us.
Insideinformation - the new guidebook
As soon as the online service is live and fully operational a printed version of insideinformation will be published as a guidebook. It will be provided free of charge to all prison libraries throughout the UK and made available to everyone else at cost.
There will be free adverts and an alphabetical listing for all those who advertise in Inside Time as a ‘thank you’ for their continued and loyal support.
The launch of the first edition, the 2009/10 Guidebook, will be announced very soon and advice as to when readers can expect them to arrive in all prison libraries.
The design and content of insideinformation has been largely driven by the input of two former prisoners, one male one female, and their family members who visited them whilst they were in prison. They are now employed by Inside Time and will be updating the online content on a three monthly cycle putting together each annual edition of the guidebook that will be supplied free of charge to all prison libraries.
insideinformation is another ‘not for profit’ service provided by Inside Time Limited.
For more information contact enquiries@insidetime.org
Comment: I suspect that Mark Leech will not be too pleased as the success of Inside Time looks secure whereas the future of ConVerse and The Prisoners Handbook looks less certain. Retirement to Thailand might appear to be a good option...
No vote means no voice in Parliament - Let prisoners speak out
No vote means no voice in Parliament - Let prisoners speak out!
By John Hirst
On 8 April 2009, the Ministry of Justice published a press release announcing that it had launched the second stage of consultation on prisoner voting. The first thing to note is the slow progress this is all taking, given that it is 5 years since the European Court of Human Rights ruled that denying all prisoners the franchise is in violation of Article 3 of the First Protocol of the European Convention. The second thing to note is that the deadline for submissions to the Committee of Ministers, which supervises execution of ECtHR judgments, and is considering Hirst v UK (No2) at its meeting between 2-4 June 2009, is 9 April 2009. If the press release timing is a coincidence, it is rather convenient. The UK is under an obligation not only to abide by the Convention but also abide by the Court decision. Arguments have been forwarded to the Committee of Ministers, not only by lawyers representing prisoners but also by prison reform groups, to show that the government has deliberately delayed implementing measures to comply with the Convention and Court judgment. It looks as if the government is trying to trump these arguments, in effect, by saying “look we are actually doing something about it”.
According to the Ministry of Justice press release: “The government believes it would not be appropriate for all serving prisoners to be able to vote and the consultation does not propose giving all prisoners the vote”. What is this belief based upon, and why is it not deemed appropriate? Labour MP Tom Harris writes on his blog “Let’s get one thing straight: the government does not want to give prisoners the right to vote”. Do any of us care what the government does or does not want? Since when does the loser of a war dictate terms? Barrister Flo Krause writes in an email: “30 March 2004. Hirst v UK App. 74025/01. The UK came, fought and lost. 6 October 2005. Hirst v UK App. 74025/01. The UK came, fought and lost. 9 April 2009. The UK is still pretending it hasn't lost”. The term ‘sore loser’ springs to mind. As the victors, we are entitled to claim the prize, the spoils of war. What this MOJ press release tells me is that it is suffering from a dose of spin doctoring.
Justice Minister Michael Wills said: ‘The government has made it clear that it disagreed with the European Court of Human Rights ruling. However, the result of the ruling is that some degree of voting being extended to some serving prisoners is legally unavoidable. But, importantly, the government does not propose to give all prisoners the vote.
‘We will ensure that whatever the outcome of this consultation, the most serious and dangerous offenders held in custody will not be able to vote. Prisoners sentenced to more than four years imprisonment will not be permitted to vote in any circumstances. We believe this is compatible with the court’s judgment and reflects the expectation of the British public that those guilty of the most serious offences should not be entitled to vote while in custody’”.
I am somewhat puzzled how the UK can agree with Article 52 of the Convention: “The judgment of the Court shall be final”, and yet claim it ‘disagrees with the Court ruling’. I don’t know of any public power which allows for such disagreement to be expressed by a public official. What is clear is that the UK has a history of trying to get away with complying with the Court decisions to the minimum extent possible. Hence the damage limitation exercise: “the result of the ruling is that some degree of voting being extended to some serving prisoners is legally unavoidable”. Even here, the government appears to be choking on the thought of it. Perhaps a spoonful of sugar will help the medicine go down? In order for me to win my £20 bet at 20/1 odds with bookmakers William Hill, it has to be …“All or the majority of prisoners to get the vote by the next General Election”.
I could not help but notice how often the government parrots the phrase ‘not all prisoners will get the vote’. Why is the government so frightened at this prospect of all prisoners getting the vote? What would happen if all convicted prisoners got the vote? Would they all rise from the Civil Dead like zombies and march out of the prison gates? It is true that the Court judgment did not say that all convicted prisoners must have the vote, it fell short of that, however the Court did say that any departure from the full franchise needs to satisfy the principles of proportionality and legitimacy. In my view, it is with these principles that the government will find difficulty in justifying disenfranchisement based upon severity of crime and length of sentence.
I am amazed that the government decided to have first one consultation exercise, and then a second. Especially given that it was not a feature of the judgment. I did raise the point that the issue of prisoners’ votes had not been the subject of debate in Parliament; so I would have thought if the government sought to comply with the judgment, then surely putting the matter before Parliament would have sufficed? The obvious problems with both of these consultation exercises are that they lack both due process and fair procedures for any claim to legitimacy. Note how it is claimed that the government’s view …“reflects the expectation of the British public that those guilty of the most serious offences should not be entitled to vote while in custody”. I thought the whole purpose of a consultation exercise was to elicit the views of the public, and not tell them what their views are?
Even though in the first consultation exercise the government said that full enfranchisement was not an option the majority (47%) disagreed with the government and said that there should be full enfranchisement. And only 22% supported continued full disenfranchisement, an option which the government allowed even though it was aware that this was unlawful as a result of the judgment. Therefore it is not the public that is against prisoners getting the vote; rather, it is knee-jerking to this kind of headline, in response to the MOJ press release, from the Daily Express, which scares the government: “EUROPE SAYS: GIVE VOTE TO CONVICTS – thousands of rapists, killers and ¬paedophiles will get the right to vote after ministers caved in to pressure from Europe, it emerged last night”. Neither the government nor papers like the Sun, Daily Express and Daily Mail are a voice for the prisoners. In my view, all convicted prisoners getting the vote will mean that their voice is heard in Parliament for the first time in British history.
By John Hirst
On 8 April 2009, the Ministry of Justice published a press release announcing that it had launched the second stage of consultation on prisoner voting. The first thing to note is the slow progress this is all taking, given that it is 5 years since the European Court of Human Rights ruled that denying all prisoners the franchise is in violation of Article 3 of the First Protocol of the European Convention. The second thing to note is that the deadline for submissions to the Committee of Ministers, which supervises execution of ECtHR judgments, and is considering Hirst v UK (No2) at its meeting between 2-4 June 2009, is 9 April 2009. If the press release timing is a coincidence, it is rather convenient. The UK is under an obligation not only to abide by the Convention but also abide by the Court decision. Arguments have been forwarded to the Committee of Ministers, not only by lawyers representing prisoners but also by prison reform groups, to show that the government has deliberately delayed implementing measures to comply with the Convention and Court judgment. It looks as if the government is trying to trump these arguments, in effect, by saying “look we are actually doing something about it”.
According to the Ministry of Justice press release: “The government believes it would not be appropriate for all serving prisoners to be able to vote and the consultation does not propose giving all prisoners the vote”. What is this belief based upon, and why is it not deemed appropriate? Labour MP Tom Harris writes on his blog “Let’s get one thing straight: the government does not want to give prisoners the right to vote”. Do any of us care what the government does or does not want? Since when does the loser of a war dictate terms? Barrister Flo Krause writes in an email: “30 March 2004. Hirst v UK App. 74025/01. The UK came, fought and lost. 6 October 2005. Hirst v UK App. 74025/01. The UK came, fought and lost. 9 April 2009. The UK is still pretending it hasn't lost”. The term ‘sore loser’ springs to mind. As the victors, we are entitled to claim the prize, the spoils of war. What this MOJ press release tells me is that it is suffering from a dose of spin doctoring.
Justice Minister Michael Wills said: ‘The government has made it clear that it disagreed with the European Court of Human Rights ruling. However, the result of the ruling is that some degree of voting being extended to some serving prisoners is legally unavoidable. But, importantly, the government does not propose to give all prisoners the vote.
‘We will ensure that whatever the outcome of this consultation, the most serious and dangerous offenders held in custody will not be able to vote. Prisoners sentenced to more than four years imprisonment will not be permitted to vote in any circumstances. We believe this is compatible with the court’s judgment and reflects the expectation of the British public that those guilty of the most serious offences should not be entitled to vote while in custody’”.
I am somewhat puzzled how the UK can agree with Article 52 of the Convention: “The judgment of the Court shall be final”, and yet claim it ‘disagrees with the Court ruling’. I don’t know of any public power which allows for such disagreement to be expressed by a public official. What is clear is that the UK has a history of trying to get away with complying with the Court decisions to the minimum extent possible. Hence the damage limitation exercise: “the result of the ruling is that some degree of voting being extended to some serving prisoners is legally unavoidable”. Even here, the government appears to be choking on the thought of it. Perhaps a spoonful of sugar will help the medicine go down? In order for me to win my £20 bet at 20/1 odds with bookmakers William Hill, it has to be …“All or the majority of prisoners to get the vote by the next General Election”.
I could not help but notice how often the government parrots the phrase ‘not all prisoners will get the vote’. Why is the government so frightened at this prospect of all prisoners getting the vote? What would happen if all convicted prisoners got the vote? Would they all rise from the Civil Dead like zombies and march out of the prison gates? It is true that the Court judgment did not say that all convicted prisoners must have the vote, it fell short of that, however the Court did say that any departure from the full franchise needs to satisfy the principles of proportionality and legitimacy. In my view, it is with these principles that the government will find difficulty in justifying disenfranchisement based upon severity of crime and length of sentence.
I am amazed that the government decided to have first one consultation exercise, and then a second. Especially given that it was not a feature of the judgment. I did raise the point that the issue of prisoners’ votes had not been the subject of debate in Parliament; so I would have thought if the government sought to comply with the judgment, then surely putting the matter before Parliament would have sufficed? The obvious problems with both of these consultation exercises are that they lack both due process and fair procedures for any claim to legitimacy. Note how it is claimed that the government’s view …“reflects the expectation of the British public that those guilty of the most serious offences should not be entitled to vote while in custody”. I thought the whole purpose of a consultation exercise was to elicit the views of the public, and not tell them what their views are?
Even though in the first consultation exercise the government said that full enfranchisement was not an option the majority (47%) disagreed with the government and said that there should be full enfranchisement. And only 22% supported continued full disenfranchisement, an option which the government allowed even though it was aware that this was unlawful as a result of the judgment. Therefore it is not the public that is against prisoners getting the vote; rather, it is knee-jerking to this kind of headline, in response to the MOJ press release, from the Daily Express, which scares the government: “EUROPE SAYS: GIVE VOTE TO CONVICTS – thousands of rapists, killers and ¬paedophiles will get the right to vote after ministers caved in to pressure from Europe, it emerged last night”. Neither the government nor papers like the Sun, Daily Express and Daily Mail are a voice for the prisoners. In my view, all convicted prisoners getting the vote will mean that their voice is heard in Parliament for the first time in British history.
A taxing matter
A taxing matter
By: Gerard McGrath - HMP Haverigg
Gerard McGrath is angered by MPs expenses irregularities and politicians’ ‘collective arrogant disdain of the electorate’
In an earlier contribution featured in Inside Time, I shared the opinion of those who feel the only people ever to enter Parliament with honourable intent were Guy Fawkes and his crew. It would appear that my rather cynical opinion has been vindicated; given the alleged abuses of taxpayers’ money by less than ‘honourable’ members of Parliament where their ‘expenses’ are concerned.
Readers will be familiar with the alleged ‘second home’ expenses irregularities where the incumbent Home Secretary is concerned, not to mention her husband viewing pornographic movies at taxpayers’ expense. Rumour has it his manhood now adorns the Home Secretary’s desk in a jar of formaldehyde. She is far from alone; there is no need for me to reprise the plethora of alleged abuses of expenses with which the news media regularly regale us regarding honourable members of Parliament. We hear it ad nauseam.
Such is the furore caused by the alleged abuses that this taxing matter is the subject of a long overdue inquiry which, when announced, was met with groans of derision by ‘honourable’ members, quite remarkable!
What angers me about this shabby lot, who sought and somehow gained election to Parliament, is their collective arrogant disdain of the electorate; their crass hypocrisy; their patronizing, condescending manner. As a non-taxpayer (given my circumstances) some might feel I have no right to express an opinion. However, I feel that I have as much right as anyone for the following reasons: Members of Parliament set themselves up as legislators, rule makers and standard bearers. It is they who exercise the mandate gifted to them by the electorate in the name of the electorate and it is incumbent upon them never to abuse their position of trust. Where taxpayers’ money is concerned, it is their duty to disburse it employing prudence and integrity. How the money is spent must be completely above reproach and subject to public scrutiny. Accountability, checks and balances must also be a matter of course; especially when politicians are claiming expenses for whatever reasons; second home allowances, car mileage, porn movies or bath plugs á la our Home Secretary. Yes I know … it really does stretch credibility does it not?
I do not subscribe to the opinion held by some that those who seek public office should not have their entire lives subject to scrutiny. It is my opinion that those who seek public office of necessity forfeit that right. Public office is a privileged position, and those who hold it should heed the adage that they must be - as Caesar’s wife - ‘above reproach’. If I expect and demand too much, I point to the un-learned lessons of history where those who lay claim to being honourable, trustworthy and possessed of integrity when they sought public office proved not to have the morals and ethics of Attila the Hun. I cite John Profumo, Jeremy Thorpe, Jeffrey Archer; liars and cheats to a man. There are numerous others … but why waste good ink?
Centuries ago, Marcus Aiselias cautioned: “Of all things, ask ‘what is its nature’?” Wise counsel indeed. Self-evidently, politicians are as pre-disposed to human shortcomings as the rest of us mere mortals. They are as avaricious, duplicitous, capricious and mendacious as some of their electorate. That said, they sought office and they must accept what comes with the territory and that is, as previously stated, being as Caesar’s wife. Do not have the arrogance and the temerity to legislate, rule make and set standards for the electorate which they feel they are exempt from in their arrogant disdain. Such seems to be the nature of many so called ‘honourable’ members of Parliament who are actually anything but … as recent revelations evidence.
I also subscribe to the opinion of Karl Marx, who rightly stated: ‘The labourer is worthy of his hire’. I readily concur that any person should receive remuneration in keeping with expertise, responsibility and their general effort. I have no objection to politicians receiving the salary they do, for all it far exceeds the national average. I do not object in principle to fair expenses, however I do object to an arrogant abuse and breach of public trust. The more so by those who presume to legislate, rule make for the rest of us yet behave as hypocrites whilst pontificating about the obscene bonus culture of bankers, derivative dealers etc; hypocritical ‘haves’ telling the ‘have nots’ how to get by as their homes are re-possessed, their pension funds evaporate before their eyes and their precious jobs are wiped out in a stroke. Spare me please… ‘physician heal thyself’.
It can but be hoped that the inquiry into the taxing matter of politicians’ expenses brings about much needed radical reform which will see the alleged and proven abuses eradicated for all time. The world is suffering the worst recession since the thirties as a direct result of avarice, lack of regulation, lack of integrity – ever a taxing matter.
By: Gerard McGrath - HMP Haverigg
Gerard McGrath is angered by MPs expenses irregularities and politicians’ ‘collective arrogant disdain of the electorate’
In an earlier contribution featured in Inside Time, I shared the opinion of those who feel the only people ever to enter Parliament with honourable intent were Guy Fawkes and his crew. It would appear that my rather cynical opinion has been vindicated; given the alleged abuses of taxpayers’ money by less than ‘honourable’ members of Parliament where their ‘expenses’ are concerned.
Readers will be familiar with the alleged ‘second home’ expenses irregularities where the incumbent Home Secretary is concerned, not to mention her husband viewing pornographic movies at taxpayers’ expense. Rumour has it his manhood now adorns the Home Secretary’s desk in a jar of formaldehyde. She is far from alone; there is no need for me to reprise the plethora of alleged abuses of expenses with which the news media regularly regale us regarding honourable members of Parliament. We hear it ad nauseam.
Such is the furore caused by the alleged abuses that this taxing matter is the subject of a long overdue inquiry which, when announced, was met with groans of derision by ‘honourable’ members, quite remarkable!
What angers me about this shabby lot, who sought and somehow gained election to Parliament, is their collective arrogant disdain of the electorate; their crass hypocrisy; their patronizing, condescending manner. As a non-taxpayer (given my circumstances) some might feel I have no right to express an opinion. However, I feel that I have as much right as anyone for the following reasons: Members of Parliament set themselves up as legislators, rule makers and standard bearers. It is they who exercise the mandate gifted to them by the electorate in the name of the electorate and it is incumbent upon them never to abuse their position of trust. Where taxpayers’ money is concerned, it is their duty to disburse it employing prudence and integrity. How the money is spent must be completely above reproach and subject to public scrutiny. Accountability, checks and balances must also be a matter of course; especially when politicians are claiming expenses for whatever reasons; second home allowances, car mileage, porn movies or bath plugs á la our Home Secretary. Yes I know … it really does stretch credibility does it not?
I do not subscribe to the opinion held by some that those who seek public office should not have their entire lives subject to scrutiny. It is my opinion that those who seek public office of necessity forfeit that right. Public office is a privileged position, and those who hold it should heed the adage that they must be - as Caesar’s wife - ‘above reproach’. If I expect and demand too much, I point to the un-learned lessons of history where those who lay claim to being honourable, trustworthy and possessed of integrity when they sought public office proved not to have the morals and ethics of Attila the Hun. I cite John Profumo, Jeremy Thorpe, Jeffrey Archer; liars and cheats to a man. There are numerous others … but why waste good ink?
Centuries ago, Marcus Aiselias cautioned: “Of all things, ask ‘what is its nature’?” Wise counsel indeed. Self-evidently, politicians are as pre-disposed to human shortcomings as the rest of us mere mortals. They are as avaricious, duplicitous, capricious and mendacious as some of their electorate. That said, they sought office and they must accept what comes with the territory and that is, as previously stated, being as Caesar’s wife. Do not have the arrogance and the temerity to legislate, rule make and set standards for the electorate which they feel they are exempt from in their arrogant disdain. Such seems to be the nature of many so called ‘honourable’ members of Parliament who are actually anything but … as recent revelations evidence.
I also subscribe to the opinion of Karl Marx, who rightly stated: ‘The labourer is worthy of his hire’. I readily concur that any person should receive remuneration in keeping with expertise, responsibility and their general effort. I have no objection to politicians receiving the salary they do, for all it far exceeds the national average. I do not object in principle to fair expenses, however I do object to an arrogant abuse and breach of public trust. The more so by those who presume to legislate, rule make for the rest of us yet behave as hypocrites whilst pontificating about the obscene bonus culture of bankers, derivative dealers etc; hypocritical ‘haves’ telling the ‘have nots’ how to get by as their homes are re-possessed, their pension funds evaporate before their eyes and their precious jobs are wiped out in a stroke. Spare me please… ‘physician heal thyself’.
It can but be hoped that the inquiry into the taxing matter of politicians’ expenses brings about much needed radical reform which will see the alleged and proven abuses eradicated for all time. The world is suffering the worst recession since the thirties as a direct result of avarice, lack of regulation, lack of integrity – ever a taxing matter.
Mother of woman murdered 30 years ago appeals to killer to come forward
Mother of woman murdered 30 years ago appeals to killer to come forward
Innocent man served 27 years in jail for Teresa De Simone murder
The mother of a woman murdered 30 years ago called today for her killer to examine his conscience and come forward. Mary Sedotti, 77, and her husband, Michael, 79, made the appeal as detectives try to find the murderer of Teresa De Simone, who was raped and strangled outside a Southampton pub in 1979.
Police have reopened the case after Sean Hodgson was cleared of the murder in March.
Hodgson, 57, spent 27 years in jail but after DNA evidence was re-examined, it was discovered he could not have been the culprit.
He had confessed to the killing of the 22-year-old gas board clerk and part-time barmaid, but pleaded not guilty at his 1982 trial. A jury at Winchester crown court found him guilty.
Related content...
'Freedom? It's lonely'
When Sean Hodgson's conviction was quashed after 27 years in prison, he may have thought his nightmare had ended. But, as Aida Edemariam reports, it has only been the beginning of a long and painful struggle to come to terms with what happened to him
Innocent man served 27 years in jail for Teresa De Simone murder
The mother of a woman murdered 30 years ago called today for her killer to examine his conscience and come forward. Mary Sedotti, 77, and her husband, Michael, 79, made the appeal as detectives try to find the murderer of Teresa De Simone, who was raped and strangled outside a Southampton pub in 1979.
Police have reopened the case after Sean Hodgson was cleared of the murder in March.
Hodgson, 57, spent 27 years in jail but after DNA evidence was re-examined, it was discovered he could not have been the culprit.
He had confessed to the killing of the 22-year-old gas board clerk and part-time barmaid, but pleaded not guilty at his 1982 trial. A jury at Winchester crown court found him guilty.
Related content...
'Freedom? It's lonely'
When Sean Hodgson's conviction was quashed after 27 years in prison, he may have thought his nightmare had ended. But, as Aida Edemariam reports, it has only been the beginning of a long and painful struggle to come to terms with what happened to him
Alcohol smuggling at open jail
Alcohol smuggling at open jail
An official watchdog has criticised Ford Open Prison after finding inmates left the site to smuggle in alcohol during the night.
This is an issue that is as ancient as the open prison itself. It is hardly news. In my view, it would be news if it was discovered that inmates did not pop down to their local for a pint!
An official watchdog has criticised Ford Open Prison after finding inmates left the site to smuggle in alcohol during the night.
This is an issue that is as ancient as the open prison itself. It is hardly news. In my view, it would be news if it was discovered that inmates did not pop down to their local for a pint!
'Very ugly' man is new Madeleine suspect
'Very ugly' man is new Madeleine suspect
This is the face of the latest suspect in Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
I didn't think much of the new claims and the new artist impression, so I thought I would instead show an ugly picture of Gerry McCann. He is still my prime suspect for disposal of Madeleine's body.
I for one will be boycotting the so-called Cutting Edge documentary on Channel 4 tonight at 9pm. The programme will not be balanced but instead just more propaganda from the McCann child killers. There was no abduction. This mean the parents are responsible. The only programme I want to see is the McCanns on trial.
This is the face of the latest suspect in Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
I didn't think much of the new claims and the new artist impression, so I thought I would instead show an ugly picture of Gerry McCann. He is still my prime suspect for disposal of Madeleine's body.
I for one will be boycotting the so-called Cutting Edge documentary on Channel 4 tonight at 9pm. The programme will not be balanced but instead just more propaganda from the McCann child killers. There was no abduction. This mean the parents are responsible. The only programme I want to see is the McCanns on trial.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Tory sleaze: The prisongate business
Tory sleaze: The prisongate business
A story is about to break involving David Cameron, which questions his fitness to be the leader of the Tory Party and/or the next Prime Minister. Ian Duncan Smith, Dominic Grieve and Jonathan Aitken are all involved.
Jonathan Aitken In relation to David Cameron, at best he made a serious error of judgement. (Prisons Policy Paper - Prisons with a Purpose) This being the case, he is not fit for purpose. However, if he knew about the proposed taxpayer rip off then his dishonesty cannot be dismissed as a past indiscretion and his position becomes untenable. I would like to ask Cameron direct what does he know?
The Tory party is advocating a prison building programme as part of their election manifesto. It can be revealed that disgraced former Tory MP Jonathan Aitken is at the centre of this emerging scandal. The Tory party authorised Aitken's appointment to Chair the Prison Reform Policy Group, a member of which being Stuart Mitson, and Aitken's Report recommends the new prison building programme features the Mitson Academy Model prison "designed" by Stuart Mitson. The inverted commas are there for good reason. The plans for the Mitson Academy Model have been stolen from GSL Ltd (Group 4)...
"The three core recommendations of the report are:
* Localising the management of the prison system by abolishing the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and replacing it with a network of Community Prison and Rehabilitation Trusts (CPRTs).
* Scrapping the Titan prison programme and reinvesting part of the budget to build five recommended new Mitson Academy model prisons.
* Revolutionising prison rehabilitation to reduce re-offending and its annual £12 billion cost".
More to follow
HMCIP Report on Rye Hill Prison when Stuart Mitson was Director.
Stuart Mitson Consulting Ltd.
LINK.
"New face at Rye Hill Prison
GSL welcomes Alan Bramley. Alan has joined the
company as the director of HM Prison Rye Hill
following Stuart Mitson’s transfer to operational
support manager.Alan has considerable experience
in prison management within both the public and
private sectors having been director of HM Prison
Lowden Grange and HM Prison Doncaster before
being promoted to operations director" (source Global News, Issue 4, Summer 2005).
It is not a simple transfer to go from Director to operational support manager. This is a demotion. Following this appointment, Stuart Mitson left the employ of GSL Ltd. It does not really matter whether it was a case of dismissal or resignation. He clearly was not up to the job. I would be interested to learn why the Tory party thought Stuart Mitson was the right man to advise the party on prison matters? How was he selected to sit as a member of the task force? A simple Google search would or should have ruled him out of the equation.
David Cameron take note PRISONS ARE NOT FOR PROFIT
David Cameron take note PRISONS ARE NOT FOR PROFIT
Fact sheet Prison privatisation
PRISONS ARE NOT FOR PROFIT
Prisoners are part of the community
(hastily adapted from the Australian sheet on privatisation.)
The National Coalition Government has proposed privatisation of NZ prisons following the
defeat of Labour in 2008. The Select Committee on Law and Order will receive submissions
about it until Friday May 22. The address is: Committee Secretariat, Law and Order, Parliament
Buildings, Wellington. You can email off the website too. www.parliament.nz/en-
NZ/SC/SubmCalled/
The Maori Party shares power with National and has been offered a separate 60 prisoner new
jail by the government. The multinational corporation GEO previously known as Wackenhut has
previously controlled Mt Eden remand prison. They also run Junee prison in NSW amongst
others. NZ community organisations and prisoners asked for assistance for a consultation with
NZ prisoners and brought a Justice Action Coordinator from Australia to help. The consultation
occurred on May 4. Prisoners, prison officers, the union and administrators were all involved.
Opposition to privatisation was clear and unequivocal. NZ Corrections agreed to put up a
negotiated notice informing prisoners of the issue so they could respond.
In Australia last year the Government attempted to privatise electricity but was confronted by its
own party at the ALP Conference, and both the Premier and Treasurer were dismissed. Despite
that history and global corporate collapses, significant government figures are committed to the
market rather than managing core government functions as stated in its own policies.
The NSW Parliament is holding an Inquiry into plans to privatise Cessnock and Parklea prisons.
It received 452 submissions including every major community organisation. Only 11 are for it
including the corporations and the Department. After widespread community opposition the
Government partially reversed its decision.
The Commissioner said that the multinational corporations could run prisons cheaper. It would
be easier to manage. But in fact the new jails like Kempsey are a similar cost.
Points to consider:
* In a democracy only the state, if anyone, should totally control a citizen and their family. It is
the ultimate, non-transferable state power. Prison isn’t like a hospital responsive to consumers.
* Increased profits require more fear of crime, more crime, more prisoners and longer
sentences.
* Rehabilitation reduces profits. Thus privatisation makes everyone less safe.
* Prisoners are part of the community – not slaves to offload onto a multinationals’ balance
sheet
* It is immoral to profit from the pain of others.
* Overseas experience is clear. Ten out of the eleven private prisons in the UK are in the
bottom quarter of the performance register.
* Cutting costs means even less services. Teachers and health would come from the cheapest
outside providers, not linking properly to the rest of the system.
• More secrecy – the corporation reports what protects their profit.
MORALLY OBSCENE
It’s quite simply wrong to make profits from the misery of others. Prisoners are not chattels to
generate profits for shareholders. They are fellow citizens to be treated with respect and not
exploited for financial gain.
In a democracy, it is the responsibility of the State to manage and control the enforcement of its
laws. The State must be accountable to citizens for their most fundamental right – their liberty.
It is a fundamental attack on the democratic social compact between citizen and state. It is a
move from the Penal Colony to the Corporate Colony with loss of accountability and transfer of
judicial power to corporations.
PRIVATISING CORRECTIONS IS CONTRADICTORY
Corporations have a legal obligation to their shareholders to grow their profits. For prison
corporations this means more crime, more prisoners for longer periods of time without
rehabilitation.
Stephen Nathan, a leading prison privatisation expert, in the March 2008 edition of the
Independent Monitor, says that means privatising prisons ‘requires more people in the criminal
justice system for longer and is squarely at odds with the public good’ (page 26).
Corrective Services has already given up correcting. Now their failure is to be corporatized. To
the Inquiry: “Recidivism may have more to do with what happens to a person before entry to
prison and subsequent to their exit from prison than anything else. Measuring "recidivism" can
never be an absolute measure by which we can evaluate the quality of correctional services
provided. Sub 258 p.17
Prisoners, who are psychologically scarred by their time in prison, will not reintegrate into
society easily. Already NSW has the worst recidivism rate in the nation.
SLAVERY
ILO Convention 29 declares it is slavery to operate prison labour programs in privatised
prisons. Legal advice: “the operation of prisons cannot comply with international labour
standards unless there are no prison labour programs in those prisons.’ PIAC Sub 106 p.9.
Both Parklea and Cessnock prisons run industry programs with labour provided by prisoners.
There is no intention to dismantle these programs after privatisation. The profits made from the
prisoners’ labour will belong to the jail corporation –based on this convention, that amounts to
slavery.
ECONOMICALLY FLAWED
To justify its decision to privatise Parklea and Cessnock prisons, the NSW government relied
on the conclusions of a report commissioned by the Legislative Assembly ‘Value for Money
From NSW Correctional Centres’. Jane Andrew from the School of Accounting and Finance at
the University of Wollongong and Damien Cahill from the University of Sydney, attacked the
Report’s conclusion that ‘the privatised model of prison management delivered superior value
for money.’
In their paper, ‘Value for Money? Neoliberalism in NSW Prisons’, Australian Accounting Review
2008, they concluded that ‘the report is fundamentally flawed on its own terms’ (at page 3) and
‘is driven by concepts of ideology rather than any cost data evidence of financial savings’ (at
page 24).
The interesting thing is that the paper attacks the report from an economic perspective (since
they are both accountants), rather than a moral perspective which we believe has just as much
authority.
COST CUTTING
Inherent to the privatisation aim of maximum profits is the certainty that prison corporations will
only provide minimum standards. To do otherwise and incur anything more than the minimum
expense in generating profits for shareholders, is arguably in breach of a corporation’s
obligation to its shareholders.
Maximum profits mean lower standards of prisoner programs, care and services. The profit
motive ensures that corporations will only spend as much as they have to when running
prisons. That means they will not have the necessary regard to moral considerations of human
decency, which are so important in a prison system.
ACM was caught taking clothes from charities to avoid purchasing them for
prisoners, until St Vincent de Paul discovered the scam. Then they tried the Uniting Church
who refused when they realised what was happening. (Andrew p.891);
A study conducted by Biles and Dalton found that in Victoria, the privatised prisons of Port
Phillip, Deer Park and Arthur Gorrie all have higher rates for all deaths and suicides than the
Australian average. (Andrew p.886)
By imposing minimum standards in our prisons, not only are we imposing a cruel and unusual
regime on our fellow citizens, we are also contributing to the breakdown of our society through
an unsustainably high rate of recidivism.
AN INTERNATIONAL FAILURE
The overseas experience is that privatisation of prisons has been shown to provide
unacceptable outcomes in the management of offenders. Stephen Nathan in the same article
above, disclosed that a recently leaked report placed 10 of the 11 private prisons in the UK in
the bottom quarter of the performance register of all UK prisons ‘and showed they are
consistently worse than their publicly run equivalents’ (page 24)
The leading multinational company GEO, ex Wackenhut, manager of Junee, was started by
three FBI agents and uses military and CIA personnel.
CORRUPTIVE INFLUENCE
In the USA, in March 2009, 2 judges pleaded guilty to receiving bribes from prison corporations
for falsely imprisoning children to increase the numbers (and hence the profits), of those in jail;
Also in the United States, it has led to prison corporations being accused of joining with and
funding right wing media ‘shock jocks’ to ramp up the law and order debate so that they can
have more people jailed to grow their profits. The more frightened the public is, the more they
will pay.
JUSTICE ACTION P.O. Box 386, BROADWAY. NSW 2007 Australia.
www.justiceaction.org.au ja@justiceaction.org.au 612 92830123
Fact sheet Prison privatisation
PRISONS ARE NOT FOR PROFIT
Prisoners are part of the community
(hastily adapted from the Australian sheet on privatisation.)
The National Coalition Government has proposed privatisation of NZ prisons following the
defeat of Labour in 2008. The Select Committee on Law and Order will receive submissions
about it until Friday May 22. The address is: Committee Secretariat, Law and Order, Parliament
Buildings, Wellington. You can email off the website too. www.parliament.nz/en-
NZ/SC/SubmCalled/
The Maori Party shares power with National and has been offered a separate 60 prisoner new
jail by the government. The multinational corporation GEO previously known as Wackenhut has
previously controlled Mt Eden remand prison. They also run Junee prison in NSW amongst
others. NZ community organisations and prisoners asked for assistance for a consultation with
NZ prisoners and brought a Justice Action Coordinator from Australia to help. The consultation
occurred on May 4. Prisoners, prison officers, the union and administrators were all involved.
Opposition to privatisation was clear and unequivocal. NZ Corrections agreed to put up a
negotiated notice informing prisoners of the issue so they could respond.
In Australia last year the Government attempted to privatise electricity but was confronted by its
own party at the ALP Conference, and both the Premier and Treasurer were dismissed. Despite
that history and global corporate collapses, significant government figures are committed to the
market rather than managing core government functions as stated in its own policies.
The NSW Parliament is holding an Inquiry into plans to privatise Cessnock and Parklea prisons.
It received 452 submissions including every major community organisation. Only 11 are for it
including the corporations and the Department. After widespread community opposition the
Government partially reversed its decision.
The Commissioner said that the multinational corporations could run prisons cheaper. It would
be easier to manage. But in fact the new jails like Kempsey are a similar cost.
Points to consider:
* In a democracy only the state, if anyone, should totally control a citizen and their family. It is
the ultimate, non-transferable state power. Prison isn’t like a hospital responsive to consumers.
* Increased profits require more fear of crime, more crime, more prisoners and longer
sentences.
* Rehabilitation reduces profits. Thus privatisation makes everyone less safe.
* Prisoners are part of the community – not slaves to offload onto a multinationals’ balance
sheet
* It is immoral to profit from the pain of others.
* Overseas experience is clear. Ten out of the eleven private prisons in the UK are in the
bottom quarter of the performance register.
* Cutting costs means even less services. Teachers and health would come from the cheapest
outside providers, not linking properly to the rest of the system.
• More secrecy – the corporation reports what protects their profit.
MORALLY OBSCENE
It’s quite simply wrong to make profits from the misery of others. Prisoners are not chattels to
generate profits for shareholders. They are fellow citizens to be treated with respect and not
exploited for financial gain.
In a democracy, it is the responsibility of the State to manage and control the enforcement of its
laws. The State must be accountable to citizens for their most fundamental right – their liberty.
It is a fundamental attack on the democratic social compact between citizen and state. It is a
move from the Penal Colony to the Corporate Colony with loss of accountability and transfer of
judicial power to corporations.
PRIVATISING CORRECTIONS IS CONTRADICTORY
Corporations have a legal obligation to their shareholders to grow their profits. For prison
corporations this means more crime, more prisoners for longer periods of time without
rehabilitation.
Stephen Nathan, a leading prison privatisation expert, in the March 2008 edition of the
Independent Monitor, says that means privatising prisons ‘requires more people in the criminal
justice system for longer and is squarely at odds with the public good’ (page 26).
Corrective Services has already given up correcting. Now their failure is to be corporatized. To
the Inquiry: “Recidivism may have more to do with what happens to a person before entry to
prison and subsequent to their exit from prison than anything else. Measuring "recidivism" can
never be an absolute measure by which we can evaluate the quality of correctional services
provided. Sub 258 p.17
Prisoners, who are psychologically scarred by their time in prison, will not reintegrate into
society easily. Already NSW has the worst recidivism rate in the nation.
SLAVERY
ILO Convention 29 declares it is slavery to operate prison labour programs in privatised
prisons. Legal advice: “the operation of prisons cannot comply with international labour
standards unless there are no prison labour programs in those prisons.’ PIAC Sub 106 p.9.
Both Parklea and Cessnock prisons run industry programs with labour provided by prisoners.
There is no intention to dismantle these programs after privatisation. The profits made from the
prisoners’ labour will belong to the jail corporation –based on this convention, that amounts to
slavery.
ECONOMICALLY FLAWED
To justify its decision to privatise Parklea and Cessnock prisons, the NSW government relied
on the conclusions of a report commissioned by the Legislative Assembly ‘Value for Money
From NSW Correctional Centres’. Jane Andrew from the School of Accounting and Finance at
the University of Wollongong and Damien Cahill from the University of Sydney, attacked the
Report’s conclusion that ‘the privatised model of prison management delivered superior value
for money.’
In their paper, ‘Value for Money? Neoliberalism in NSW Prisons’, Australian Accounting Review
2008, they concluded that ‘the report is fundamentally flawed on its own terms’ (at page 3) and
‘is driven by concepts of ideology rather than any cost data evidence of financial savings’ (at
page 24).
The interesting thing is that the paper attacks the report from an economic perspective (since
they are both accountants), rather than a moral perspective which we believe has just as much
authority.
COST CUTTING
Inherent to the privatisation aim of maximum profits is the certainty that prison corporations will
only provide minimum standards. To do otherwise and incur anything more than the minimum
expense in generating profits for shareholders, is arguably in breach of a corporation’s
obligation to its shareholders.
Maximum profits mean lower standards of prisoner programs, care and services. The profit
motive ensures that corporations will only spend as much as they have to when running
prisons. That means they will not have the necessary regard to moral considerations of human
decency, which are so important in a prison system.
ACM was caught taking clothes from charities to avoid purchasing them for
prisoners, until St Vincent de Paul discovered the scam. Then they tried the Uniting Church
who refused when they realised what was happening. (Andrew p.891);
A study conducted by Biles and Dalton found that in Victoria, the privatised prisons of Port
Phillip, Deer Park and Arthur Gorrie all have higher rates for all deaths and suicides than the
Australian average. (Andrew p.886)
By imposing minimum standards in our prisons, not only are we imposing a cruel and unusual
regime on our fellow citizens, we are also contributing to the breakdown of our society through
an unsustainably high rate of recidivism.
AN INTERNATIONAL FAILURE
The overseas experience is that privatisation of prisons has been shown to provide
unacceptable outcomes in the management of offenders. Stephen Nathan in the same article
above, disclosed that a recently leaked report placed 10 of the 11 private prisons in the UK in
the bottom quarter of the performance register of all UK prisons ‘and showed they are
consistently worse than their publicly run equivalents’ (page 24)
The leading multinational company GEO, ex Wackenhut, manager of Junee, was started by
three FBI agents and uses military and CIA personnel.
CORRUPTIVE INFLUENCE
In the USA, in March 2009, 2 judges pleaded guilty to receiving bribes from prison corporations
for falsely imprisoning children to increase the numbers (and hence the profits), of those in jail;
Also in the United States, it has led to prison corporations being accused of joining with and
funding right wing media ‘shock jocks’ to ramp up the law and order debate so that they can
have more people jailed to grow their profits. The more frightened the public is, the more they
will pay.
JUSTICE ACTION P.O. Box 386, BROADWAY. NSW 2007 Australia.
www.justiceaction.org.au ja@justiceaction.org.au 612 92830123
Care home loses 77 kids claims secret report
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
David Cameron and the slave trade
David Cameron and the slave trade
"* In a democracy only the state, if anyone, should totally control a citizen and their family. It is the ultimate, non-transferable state power. Prison isn’t like a hospital responsive to consumers.
* Increased profits require more fear of crime, more crime, more prisoners and longer sentences.
* Rehabilitation reduces profits. Thus privatisation makes everyone less safe.
* Prisoners are part of the community – not slaves to offload onto a multinationals’ balance sheet
* It is immoral to profit from the pain of others.
* Overseas experience is clear. Ten out of the eleven private prisons in the UK are in the bottom quarter of the performance register.
* Cutting costs means even less services. Teachers and health would come from the cheapest outside providers, not linking properly to the rest of the system.
• More secrecy – the corporation reports what protects their profit".
www.justiceaction.org.au
David Cameron's slavery idea hidden in the link below.
Prisons Policy Paper - Prisons with a purpose
"* In a democracy only the state, if anyone, should totally control a citizen and their family. It is the ultimate, non-transferable state power. Prison isn’t like a hospital responsive to consumers.
* Increased profits require more fear of crime, more crime, more prisoners and longer sentences.
* Rehabilitation reduces profits. Thus privatisation makes everyone less safe.
* Prisoners are part of the community – not slaves to offload onto a multinationals’ balance sheet
* It is immoral to profit from the pain of others.
* Overseas experience is clear. Ten out of the eleven private prisons in the UK are in the bottom quarter of the performance register.
* Cutting costs means even less services. Teachers and health would come from the cheapest outside providers, not linking properly to the rest of the system.
• More secrecy – the corporation reports what protects their profit".
www.justiceaction.org.au
David Cameron's slavery idea hidden in the link below.
Prisons Policy Paper - Prisons with a purpose
Prisoners fight prison privatisation in New Zealand
Prisoners fight prison privatisation in New Zealand
JUSTICE ACTION
Media release May 4, 2009
Mt Eden prisoners consultation on privatisation
Mt Eden prisoners will have the chance to consult with the Australian delegation on prison
privatisation today at 2pm at the prison.
Although Minister Judith Collins said last week that prisoners are too busy working, over five
hundred Mt Eden prisoners say that they are mostly locked in cages and cells, and do want to
consult on the issue.
Mt Eden Prison Manager Gary Stock has been asked to set aside an area in the prison for that
consultation to happen.
NZ community organisations paid for Justice Action Coordinator Brett Collins to visit to assist
the consultation. Last week Australian plans to privatise prisons were reversed after major
community opposition forced the government to change its mind.
Mr Collins and Green Party MP Metiria Turei will also speak at the GPJA forum today at
7.30pm at Trades Hall, 147 Great North Rd, Grey Lynn, Auckland chaired by John Minto.
The Minister of Corrections Judith Collins, and Maori Party MP Hone Harawira have been
invited or asked to provide representatives, to present the case supporting prison privatisation.
For Comments: Jim Gladwin 828 4517, Rose Hollins 828 0238 / 021 297 0875,
Brett Collins 0061 438705003
Ex-con back behind bars to fight jail privatisation
Tuesday May 05, 2009
By Simon Collins
Photo / Martin Sykes
Brett Collins was allowed into Mt Eden Prison yesterday after initially being refused.
The gates of Mt Eden Prison opened yesterday to a former convicted bank robber campaigning against privatising jails, despite an official statement that he would not be let in.
Ngaruawahia-born Brett Collins, who served 10 years in an Australian jail for a bank robbery, now leads Sydney-based Justice Action. The organisation helped to push the New South Wales Government into abandoning plans last Friday to privatise one of two state jails it had earmarked for private management.
Quakers paid for him to come to Auckland to speak at a public meeting last night against a bill allowing private management of New Zealand prisons. Submissions on the bill close on May 22.
He applied to the Corrections Department on April 26 for permission to talk about the bill with prisoner committees in Mt Eden and Paremoremo jails, but a department spokesman said yesterday morning that the visit was "not possible", partly because there were no elected committees of prisoners. But when Mr Collins turned up at the prison gates anyway at 2pm with three local activists, acting prison manager Gary Stock eventually gave the group an hour with four prisoners on the jail's welfare committee.
Mr Collins said the four prisoners and the prison officers he met all opposed privatisation, and the prisoners felt "resentful".
"They objected to multinationals coming in and making a profit out of them sitting longer in jail," he said.
Maori Party MP Hone Harawira was invited to speak in support of privatisation at last night's meeting, organised by Global Peace and Justice Auckland, but had another engagement.
He said he would not be particularly happy to see multinationals running a local jail - "but by the same token neither am I particularly happy to see the New Zealand Corrections Department running it".
"What would you suggest that the Maori Party did," he asked, "sit back and let things continue the way they are, or do what we can to change things?"
* On the web: www.justiceaction.org.au http://www.justiceaction.org.au
JUSTICE ACTION
Media release May 4, 2009
Mt Eden prisoners consultation on privatisation
Mt Eden prisoners will have the chance to consult with the Australian delegation on prison
privatisation today at 2pm at the prison.
Although Minister Judith Collins said last week that prisoners are too busy working, over five
hundred Mt Eden prisoners say that they are mostly locked in cages and cells, and do want to
consult on the issue.
Mt Eden Prison Manager Gary Stock has been asked to set aside an area in the prison for that
consultation to happen.
NZ community organisations paid for Justice Action Coordinator Brett Collins to visit to assist
the consultation. Last week Australian plans to privatise prisons were reversed after major
community opposition forced the government to change its mind.
Mr Collins and Green Party MP Metiria Turei will also speak at the GPJA forum today at
7.30pm at Trades Hall, 147 Great North Rd, Grey Lynn, Auckland chaired by John Minto.
The Minister of Corrections Judith Collins, and Maori Party MP Hone Harawira have been
invited or asked to provide representatives, to present the case supporting prison privatisation.
For Comments: Jim Gladwin 828 4517, Rose Hollins 828 0238 / 021 297 0875,
Brett Collins 0061 438705003
Ex-con back behind bars to fight jail privatisation
Tuesday May 05, 2009
By Simon Collins
Photo / Martin SykesBrett Collins was allowed into Mt Eden Prison yesterday after initially being refused.
The gates of Mt Eden Prison opened yesterday to a former convicted bank robber campaigning against privatising jails, despite an official statement that he would not be let in.
Ngaruawahia-born Brett Collins, who served 10 years in an Australian jail for a bank robbery, now leads Sydney-based Justice Action. The organisation helped to push the New South Wales Government into abandoning plans last Friday to privatise one of two state jails it had earmarked for private management.
Quakers paid for him to come to Auckland to speak at a public meeting last night against a bill allowing private management of New Zealand prisons. Submissions on the bill close on May 22.
He applied to the Corrections Department on April 26 for permission to talk about the bill with prisoner committees in Mt Eden and Paremoremo jails, but a department spokesman said yesterday morning that the visit was "not possible", partly because there were no elected committees of prisoners. But when Mr Collins turned up at the prison gates anyway at 2pm with three local activists, acting prison manager Gary Stock eventually gave the group an hour with four prisoners on the jail's welfare committee.
Mr Collins said the four prisoners and the prison officers he met all opposed privatisation, and the prisoners felt "resentful".
"They objected to multinationals coming in and making a profit out of them sitting longer in jail," he said.
Maori Party MP Hone Harawira was invited to speak in support of privatisation at last night's meeting, organised by Global Peace and Justice Auckland, but had another engagement.
He said he would not be particularly happy to see multinationals running a local jail - "but by the same token neither am I particularly happy to see the New Zealand Corrections Department running it".
"What would you suggest that the Maori Party did," he asked, "sit back and let things continue the way they are, or do what we can to change things?"
* On the web: www.justiceaction.org.au http://www.justiceaction.org.au
The Madness which is Melanie Phillips
The Madness which is Melanie Phillips
Melanie Phillips is paid good money by the Daily Mail to write opinion pieces. It would appear that this is not because her opinion really matters for anything. Rather it is because she has the ability to string three words together. Clever girl! However, she is not as clever as she would like us to think. She is claiming that she has the moral authority to judge others. Instead of writing about what she knows, she breaks the first rule and blusters through her article hoping nobody will spot how ignorant she really is. For example:
Jailhouse madness
Melanie Phillips
"Sending someone to prison is supposed to achieve various things. It acts as a deterrent, protects the public, and (hopefully) trains inmates for a more lawabiding life.
But at its very core, the purpose of prison is to punish.
Without this central element, imprisonment becomes meaningless and justice itself is mocked".
Does prison act as a deterrent if 70% of released prisoners re-offend? If deterrence is a purpose of prison, it follows that within the concept of deterrence is the element to protect the public from crime and re-offending. Therefore, it is pointless to have the additional concept of public protection. That is like saying public protection protects the public. If a purpose of prison is to train prisoners for a more law-abiding life, it would help if the Ministry of Justice abides by the law and set a good example to follow.
The Criminal Justice Act 1948 abolished the sentence of imprisonment with hard labour. From this point on a prisoner was sent to prison as a punishment and not for punishment. Melanie Phillips has clearly misunderstood the difference between the words "as" and "for". Perhaps, Jacqui Smith can give her sink plug to Melanie Phillips? Those who can write, those who cannot should do the dishes! This is turning into a kitchen sink drama. The core purpose of prison is not to punish.
The central element of Melanie Phillips' argument falters, and she fails to grasp the meaning of prison saying it has become meaningless. A main purpose of prison has to be business. We should be looking at who stands to gain from building more prisons. The motive is profit. I wouldn't call profiting from others misery justice.
Melanie Phillips is paid good money by the Daily Mail to write opinion pieces. It would appear that this is not because her opinion really matters for anything. Rather it is because she has the ability to string three words together. Clever girl! However, she is not as clever as she would like us to think. She is claiming that she has the moral authority to judge others. Instead of writing about what she knows, she breaks the first rule and blusters through her article hoping nobody will spot how ignorant she really is. For example:
Jailhouse madness
Melanie Phillips
"Sending someone to prison is supposed to achieve various things. It acts as a deterrent, protects the public, and (hopefully) trains inmates for a more lawabiding life.
But at its very core, the purpose of prison is to punish.
Without this central element, imprisonment becomes meaningless and justice itself is mocked".
Does prison act as a deterrent if 70% of released prisoners re-offend? If deterrence is a purpose of prison, it follows that within the concept of deterrence is the element to protect the public from crime and re-offending. Therefore, it is pointless to have the additional concept of public protection. That is like saying public protection protects the public. If a purpose of prison is to train prisoners for a more law-abiding life, it would help if the Ministry of Justice abides by the law and set a good example to follow.
The Criminal Justice Act 1948 abolished the sentence of imprisonment with hard labour. From this point on a prisoner was sent to prison as a punishment and not for punishment. Melanie Phillips has clearly misunderstood the difference between the words "as" and "for". Perhaps, Jacqui Smith can give her sink plug to Melanie Phillips? Those who can write, those who cannot should do the dishes! This is turning into a kitchen sink drama. The core purpose of prison is not to punish.
The central element of Melanie Phillips' argument falters, and she fails to grasp the meaning of prison saying it has become meaningless. A main purpose of prison has to be business. We should be looking at who stands to gain from building more prisons. The motive is profit. I wouldn't call profiting from others misery justice.
McDonald's rubber burgers
McDonald's rubber burgers
If you ever wondered why your McCrap burger tasted of rubber...
Girl finds condom in McDonald's Happy Meal
Swiss police said today they were investigating a seven-year-old girl's discovery of a condom in her McDonald's Happy Meal.
Fribourg state police say the mother called them after the girl discovered the condom among her French fries.
Police said today they were investigating where the condom came from and how it got into the Happy Meal.
They said an analysis was being done to determine if the condom posed a health risk.
McDonald's in Switzerland declined to comment because of the ongoing investigation.
This article is from The Belfast Telegraph
If you ever wondered why your McCrap burger tasted of rubber...
Girl finds condom in McDonald's Happy Meal
Swiss police said today they were investigating a seven-year-old girl's discovery of a condom in her McDonald's Happy Meal.
Fribourg state police say the mother called them after the girl discovered the condom among her French fries.
Police said today they were investigating where the condom came from and how it got into the Happy Meal.
They said an analysis was being done to determine if the condom posed a health risk.
McDonald's in Switzerland declined to comment because of the ongoing investigation.
This article is from The Belfast Telegraph
Monday, May 04, 2009
Equality before the eyes of the law
Equality before the eyes of the law
According to David Cameron "The Prime Minister has run out of moral and political authority".
One of the arguments which the government claimed justified denying convicted prisoners the vote is that they lacked moral authority.
If there is no difference between convicted prisoners and Gordon Brown, then it cannot be a valid argument for denying convicted prisoners the vote any longer.
Enver Solomon does a good job of demolishing the Tory party policy document.
I will be doing a fisk of an article by Melanie Phillips...
According to David Cameron "The Prime Minister has run out of moral and political authority".
One of the arguments which the government claimed justified denying convicted prisoners the vote is that they lacked moral authority.
If there is no difference between convicted prisoners and Gordon Brown, then it cannot be a valid argument for denying convicted prisoners the vote any longer.
Enver Solomon does a good job of demolishing the Tory party policy document.
I will be doing a fisk of an article by Melanie Phillips...
Conservative Reform About Prison (CRAP)
Conservative Reform About Prison (CRAP)
"The previous Conservative Government had built seventeen new prisons in the 1990s ... In March 1997, the Conservative Government was able to promise three new prisons and 2,030 new prison places within six months and a further 6,000 to be provided within the next three years...Nevertheless, when Labour came to power, in May 1997 prisons were already holding 7 per cent more prisoners than the cells available were intended to hold" (Tory party policy document).
17 new prisons under the last Tory administration and still they left the Labour administration with at least 7% overcrowded prisons.
Now the Tory solution is to build even more prisons, to reduce the prison population.
And, it intends letting private prison contractors build and operate these new prisons. For these private prison contractors to make profit they are dependent upon prison capacity not being reduced by reforms and rehabilitation of prisoners. If the Tory party is really interested in reducing crime by reducing the prison population, why does it estimate an increase in profits for the private prison contractors at the taxpayers expense?
Projected profits for the private prison business for the years 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 under the Tory party:
2013 £27M
2014 £83M
2015 £140M
2016 £199M
2017 £259M
With such high profits up for grab, it has to be asked if the Tory party has a undeclared interest in not favouring rehabilitation of prisoners because crime reduction which would benefit the majority is at odds with making profits for a minority of businessmen and companies.
"The previous Conservative Government had built seventeen new prisons in the 1990s ... In March 1997, the Conservative Government was able to promise three new prisons and 2,030 new prison places within six months and a further 6,000 to be provided within the next three years...Nevertheless, when Labour came to power, in May 1997 prisons were already holding 7 per cent more prisoners than the cells available were intended to hold" (Tory party policy document).
17 new prisons under the last Tory administration and still they left the Labour administration with at least 7% overcrowded prisons.
Now the Tory solution is to build even more prisons, to reduce the prison population.
And, it intends letting private prison contractors build and operate these new prisons. For these private prison contractors to make profit they are dependent upon prison capacity not being reduced by reforms and rehabilitation of prisoners. If the Tory party is really interested in reducing crime by reducing the prison population, why does it estimate an increase in profits for the private prison contractors at the taxpayers expense?
Projected profits for the private prison business for the years 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 under the Tory party:
2013 £27M
2014 £83M
2015 £140M
2016 £199M
2017 £259M
With such high profits up for grab, it has to be asked if the Tory party has a undeclared interest in not favouring rehabilitation of prisoners because crime reduction which would benefit the majority is at odds with making profits for a minority of businessmen and companies.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
First cygnet born in sign of early summer
First cygnet born in sign of early summer
The first cygnet of the year has hatched a fortnight earlier than usual at Abbotsbury Swannery in Dorset.
The first chick to emerge is a traditional sign of the start of summer, something that normally happens in mid-May.
Benedictine monks have looked after the swans since the 14th century, keeping records which date back to 1393. The first egg to hatch in a nest usually prompts the other cygnets to emerge and soon there are expected to be up to 1,000 baby swans on about 140 nests.
The first cygnet of the year has hatched a fortnight earlier than usual at Abbotsbury Swannery in Dorset.
The first chick to emerge is a traditional sign of the start of summer, something that normally happens in mid-May.
Benedictine monks have looked after the swans since the 14th century, keeping records which date back to 1393. The first egg to hatch in a nest usually prompts the other cygnets to emerge and soon there are expected to be up to 1,000 baby swans on about 140 nests.
Labour MP 'claimed sauna on expenses'
Labour MP 'claimed sauna on expenses'
They have bought everything from bath plugs to plasma televisions on their expenses, but now MPs are sweating over mounting speculation at Westminster that one of their number has gone further.
One Labour MP is said to have claimed the cost of building a sauna on his second homa allowance, insisting that a skin condition made it necessary for him to have regular sessions at his home. The unnamed parliamentarian would have left taxpayers with a bill of thousands of pounds.
A Commons source said: "Jacqui Smith claimed for her husband's porn films and an 88p bath plug but to claim for installing a sauna would be absolutely breathtaking."
Party leaders have been told to plan for possible by-elections when full details of all MPs' claims are published for the first time in July amid suggestions that some are so outrageous they could lead to resignations.
Three Labour MPs were reported last week to have been placed on "suicide watch" by party whips because of fears their expenses details could reveal that they had affairs.
MPs voted in a series of reforms to the much-criticised expenses system last week - but a Government plan to replace MPs' second-home allowances with a flat-rate attendance fee was abandoned.
Related content...
MP CLAIMED £10,000 MORE ON EXPENSES THAN HE PAID
CABINET Minister James Purnell was under pressure last night to explain why he claimed £10,000 more in Parliamentary expenses than he paid in rent for his London flat.
The Welfare and Pensions Secretary, tipped as a future leader of the Labour Party, pocketed £10,143 more than the rent he was being charged on his second home in London.
A Sunday Express investigation has revealed that Mr Purnell submitted rent claims of up to £2,020 each month – yet bank records prove that he paid only £910 every month.
Hat-Tip to Barnacle Bill in the comments.
They have bought everything from bath plugs to plasma televisions on their expenses, but now MPs are sweating over mounting speculation at Westminster that one of their number has gone further.
One Labour MP is said to have claimed the cost of building a sauna on his second homa allowance, insisting that a skin condition made it necessary for him to have regular sessions at his home. The unnamed parliamentarian would have left taxpayers with a bill of thousands of pounds.
A Commons source said: "Jacqui Smith claimed for her husband's porn films and an 88p bath plug but to claim for installing a sauna would be absolutely breathtaking."
Party leaders have been told to plan for possible by-elections when full details of all MPs' claims are published for the first time in July amid suggestions that some are so outrageous they could lead to resignations.
Three Labour MPs were reported last week to have been placed on "suicide watch" by party whips because of fears their expenses details could reveal that they had affairs.
MPs voted in a series of reforms to the much-criticised expenses system last week - but a Government plan to replace MPs' second-home allowances with a flat-rate attendance fee was abandoned.
Related content...
MP CLAIMED £10,000 MORE ON EXPENSES THAN HE PAID
CABINET Minister James Purnell was under pressure last night to explain why he claimed £10,000 more in Parliamentary expenses than he paid in rent for his London flat.
The Welfare and Pensions Secretary, tipped as a future leader of the Labour Party, pocketed £10,143 more than the rent he was being charged on his second home in London.
A Sunday Express investigation has revealed that Mr Purnell submitted rent claims of up to £2,020 each month – yet bank records prove that he paid only £910 every month.
Hat-Tip to Barnacle Bill in the comments.
Cameron is anti-black and anti-gay
Cameron is anti-black and anti-gay
David Cameron has shown his true colours by supporting the views that homosexuality will cause the downfall of civilisation, and that Barack Obama's victory would mean the end of the civilisation of the white man.
It is to be expected that the homosexual Tory blogger Iain Dale maintains a silence on his blog on these issues...
David Cameron has shown his true colours by supporting the views that homosexuality will cause the downfall of civilisation, and that Barack Obama's victory would mean the end of the civilisation of the white man.
It is to be expected that the homosexual Tory blogger Iain Dale maintains a silence on his blog on these issues...
Labour peer Baroness Uddin claims £100,000 expenses on empty flat
Labour peer Baroness Uddin claims £100,000 expenses on empty flat
A LABOUR peer who lives in the East End of London has claimed about £100,000 in parliamentary expenses on a flat in Kent that neighbours say has been unoccupied for years.
Baroness Uddin, who worked closely with Tony and Cherie Blair, has been claiming allowances intended for peers living outside London although she resides only four miles from the Lords.
Inquiries by The Sunday Times have established that the baroness bought a two-bedroom flat in Maidstone in 2005 and has named it as her main home to claim almost £30,000 a year in accommodation expenses from the House of Lords.
Residents from the five other flats in the same block as Uddin’s property all say they have never seen her there. They could see through the windows that the bedrooms were unfurnished.
I don't care that she is the first Muslim peer. She is not setting a good example by being a thief of taxpayers money. Nothing less than repaying the full amount stolen by her will satisfy me.
Related content...
The Lords head for another PR disaster
A LABOUR peer who lives in the East End of London has claimed about £100,000 in parliamentary expenses on a flat in Kent that neighbours say has been unoccupied for years.
Baroness Uddin, who worked closely with Tony and Cherie Blair, has been claiming allowances intended for peers living outside London although she resides only four miles from the Lords.
Inquiries by The Sunday Times have established that the baroness bought a two-bedroom flat in Maidstone in 2005 and has named it as her main home to claim almost £30,000 a year in accommodation expenses from the House of Lords.
Residents from the five other flats in the same block as Uddin’s property all say they have never seen her there. They could see through the windows that the bedrooms were unfurnished.
I don't care that she is the first Muslim peer. She is not setting a good example by being a thief of taxpayers money. Nothing less than repaying the full amount stolen by her will satisfy me.
Related content...
The Lords head for another PR disaster
Saturday, May 02, 2009
The cover-up of an Olympic tragedy
The cover-up of an Olympic tragedy
As Liu Yan rehearsed her moves on the stage at Beijing's Bird's Nest stadium one evening last July, she had no idea that it would be the last time she would ever dance.
As China's most acclaimed classical dancer, she had been given a coveted six minute slot to perform during the opening ceremony for China's Olympics. The only solo dance in the entire show, it was meant to be the highlight of her short, but spectacular career, a chance to display her talent to a worldwide audience of billions.
But on the night of the ceremony itself, Ms Liu, 26, was lying in a hospital bed, paralysed below the waist after a fall caused by a mistake made by the stagehands during the rehearsal, 12 days earlier. And as she faced up to the knowledge that she would be confined to a wheelchair for the rest of her life, the story of her tragedy was being hushed up by government officials, who feared it would take the shine off a Games designed to celebrate China's ascent to superpower status.
As Liu Yan rehearsed her moves on the stage at Beijing's Bird's Nest stadium one evening last July, she had no idea that it would be the last time she would ever dance.
As China's most acclaimed classical dancer, she had been given a coveted six minute slot to perform during the opening ceremony for China's Olympics. The only solo dance in the entire show, it was meant to be the highlight of her short, but spectacular career, a chance to display her talent to a worldwide audience of billions.
But on the night of the ceremony itself, Ms Liu, 26, was lying in a hospital bed, paralysed below the waist after a fall caused by a mistake made by the stagehands during the rehearsal, 12 days earlier. And as she faced up to the knowledge that she would be confined to a wheelchair for the rest of her life, the story of her tragedy was being hushed up by government officials, who feared it would take the shine off a Games designed to celebrate China's ascent to superpower status.
Spot the deliberate mistakes
Spot the deliberate mistakes
Version 1
ASA Adjudications
Spyhole Press Ltd t/a ConVerse
175 Hill Lane
Manchester
M9 6RL
Number of complaints: 1
Date: 29 April 2009
Media: Press general
Sector: Publishing
Ad
A front-page flash on ConVerse - a newspaper distributed to prisons - stated "THE HIGHEST CIRCULATION NATIONAL NEWSPAPER FOR PRISONERS."
Issue
A reader challenged whether the claim "THE HIGHEST CIRCULATION NATIONAL NEWSPAPER FOR PRISONERS" was misleading and could be substantiated.
The CAP Code: 3.1;7.1;18.1;18.3
Response
ConVerse said the "highest circulation" claim was based on the number of copies delivered to prisons. ConVerse said the Oxford English Dictionary defined "circulation" as "the number of copies of each issue of a newspaper, magazine, etc. distributed." They said they believed their "highest circulation" claim was therefore likely to be understood as referring to the number of copies distributed only. They supplied figures, which they described as circulation figures, published respectively in ConVerse and their competitor publication. They believed the figures showed that, over the preceding 15 months, ConVerse had circulated 52,000 copies more than the competitor publication. They said that amounted to an average of 3,500 more copies per month, which they believed justified the "highest circulation" claim. They said that, in addition to England and Wales, their competitor's publication was also circulated to prisons in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and so their competitor's circulation figures for England and Wales were in fact smaller than their total circulation figure. ConVerse said they conducted surveys with prisons every six months to check that the newspaper was being received and distributed satisfactorily and whether too many or too few were being delivered. They said that, for a prison population of 83,000 prisoners in England and Wales spread across 139 prisons, their latest monthly figures (dated February 2009) were that they had printed 48,000.
They said the "national" part of their claim referred to England and Wales. They said the Probation Service referred to itself as the National Probation Service and its remit covered England and Wales but not Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA considered it was reasonable for ConVerse to use the term "national" within England and Wales to refer to distribution within England and Wales. We noted that the figures ConVerse had supplied and described as circulation figures would have been described as distribution figures if they had been subject to normal Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) criteria. We noted that the print invoices ConVerse had supplied showed their print run figures exceeded the distribution figures that the competitor publication claimed for itself. We noted the dictionary definition of "circulation" which ConVerse had supplied, together with the exceptional circumstances of a free newspaper that was distributed to prisons only. We nevertheless considered readers, and in particular advertising buyers who were potential advertisers with ConVerse, would be familiar with ABC's use of the terms "distribution" and "circulation" and that they were therefore likely to understand ConVerse's "highest circulation" claim to mean that they had the highest sales figures. We considered that, because ConVerse had not shown that they had the highest sales figures of any national newspaper distributed to prisons, the claim was likely to mislead. We told ConVerse to remove the claim and, in future, to avoid using the word "circulation" to describe the number of copies of ConVerse distributed.
The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.
Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)
Version 2
CONVERSE: HIGHEST NATIONAL CIRCULATION NEWSPAPER FOR PRISONERS
Mark Leech
View profile
More options Mar 3, 2:46 pm
From: Mark Leech
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 05:46:39 -0800 (PST)
Local: Tues, Mar 3 2009 2:46 pm
Subject: CONVERSE: HIGHEST NATIONAL CIRCULATION NEWSPAPER FOR PRISONERS
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
In light of the comment from John Hirst that Converse does not have
the evidence to substantiate its claim to be the highest circulation
national newspaper for prisoners, I thought I'd comment on the
background to this and the current position.
John Hirst's sidekick, Ben Gunn a lifer in Shepton Mallet and arch
opponent to Converse, complained to the Advertising Standards
Authority that Converse was making untrue claims in saying it was the
highest circulation national newspaper for prisoners.
Quite rightly the ASA investigated the claim we made and the
Investigation Report was out last Friday - it has to be ratified by
the ASA Council, but here is the verbatim report and their
recommendation that the complaint be dismissed.
_______
The Advertising Standards Authority has published the following
Adjudication on ConVerse.
A front page flash on ConVerse - a newspaper distributed to prisons -
stated "THE HIGHEST CIRCULATION NATIONAL NEWSPAPER FOR PRISONERS."
Issue: A reader in Shepton Mallet challenged whether the claim was
misleading and could be substantiated.
Response: ConVerse said the "highest circulation" claim was based on
the number of copies delivered to prisons. ConVerse said the Oxford
English Dictionary defined "circulation" as "the number of copies of
each issue of a newspaper, magazine, etc distributed." They said they
believed their "highest circulation" claim was therefore likely to be
understood as referring to the number of copies distributed only.
They supplied figures, which they described as circulation figures,
published respectively in ConVerse and their competitor publication.
They believed the figures showed that, over the preceding 15 months,
ConVerse had circulated 52,000 copies more than the competitor
publication. They said that amounted to an average of 3,500 more
copies per month, which they believed justified the "highest
circulation" claim. They said that, in addition to England and Wales,
their competitor's publication was also circulated to prisons in
Scotland and Northern Ireland, and so their competitor's circulation
figures for England and Wales were in fact smaller than their total
circulation figure. ConVerse said they conducted surveys with prisons
every six months to check that the newspaper was being received and
distributed satisfactorily and whether too many or too few were being
delivered. They said that, for a prison population of 83,000
prisoners in England and Wales spread across 139 prisons, their latest
monthly figures (dated February 2009) were that they had printed
48,000. They said the "national" part of their claim referred to
England and Wales. They said the Probation Service referred to itself
as the National Probation Service and its remit covered England and
Wales but not Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Assessment: Not upheld
The ASA considered it was reasonable for ConVerse to use the term
"national" within England and Wales to refer to distribution within
England and Wales. We noted that the figures ConVerse had supplied
and described as circulation figures were in fact distribution
figures. We noted that ConVerse had supplied print invoices that
showed their print run figures and that their print run figures
exceeded the distribution figures that the competitor publication
claimed for itself. We considered that the term "circulation" was
open to interpretation to some extent and that, in some situations, it
could be understood to refer to the number of copies of a publication
that were sold. In the context of a newspaper that was distributed
free of charge in prisons, however, and in the light of the print run
figures ConVerse had supplied, which exceeded the numbers claimed by
their competitor, we concluded that ConVerse had substantiated that
they printed and distributed more copies of their newspaper than their
competitor claimed and that the claim that they were the highest
circulation national newspaper for prisoners was therefore unlikely to
mislead readers.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation),
7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons) but did not find it
in breach.
Action: No further action necessary.
UPDATE: There will be further action because Jailhouselawyer has contacted the ASA press office for a comment on Mark Leech's unlawful conduct of changing their decision and fraudulently passing it off as coming from the ASA.
Furthermore, in relation to Google Groups, in my view, Mark Leech has violated the Terms of Service and I will be making Google aware of this and ask that Google removes the offending material.
"6. Appropriate Conduct
You agree that you are responsible for your own conduct and communications while using the Service and for any consequences thereof. You agree to use the Service only to send and receive messages and material that are legal, proper and related to the particular Group. By way of example, and not as a limitation, you agree that when using the Service, you will not:
* defame, abuse, harass, stalk, threaten or otherwise violate the legal rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity) of others;
* post any inappropriate, defamatory, infringing, obscene, or unlawful Content;
* post any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret or other proprietary right of any party (the "Rights"), unless you are the owner of the Rights or have the permission of the owner to Post such Content;
* post messages that promote pyramid schemes, chain letters or disruptive commercial messages or advertisements, or anything else prohibited by the Group owner.
* download any file Posted by another user of a Group that you know, or reasonably should know, that cannot be legally distributed in such manner;
* impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other material contained in a file that is Posted;
* restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying the Service;
* use the Service for any illegal or unauthorized purpose;
* remove any copyright, trademark or other proprietary rights notices contained in or on the Service;
* interfere with or disrupt the Service or servers or networks connected to the Service, or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Service;
* use any robot, spider, site search/retrieval application, or other device to retrieve or index any portion of the Service or collect information about users for any unauthorized purpose;
* submit Content that falsely expresses or implies that such Content is sponsored or endorsed by Google;
* create user accounts by automated means or under false or fraudulent pretenses;
* promote or provide instructional information about illegal activities or promote physical harm or injury against any group or individual; or
* transmit any viruses, worms, defects, Trojan horses, or any items of a destructive nature.
International users agree to comply with their own local rules regarding online conduct and acceptable content, including laws regulating the export of data to the United States or your country of residence.
While Google prohibits such conduct and Content in connection with the Service, you understand and agree that you nonetheless may be exposed to such conduct and/or Content and that you use the Service at your own risk".
Version 1
ASA Adjudications
Spyhole Press Ltd t/a ConVerse
175 Hill Lane
Manchester
M9 6RL
Number of complaints: 1
Date: 29 April 2009
Media: Press general
Sector: Publishing
Ad
A front-page flash on ConVerse - a newspaper distributed to prisons - stated "THE HIGHEST CIRCULATION NATIONAL NEWSPAPER FOR PRISONERS."
Issue
A reader challenged whether the claim "THE HIGHEST CIRCULATION NATIONAL NEWSPAPER FOR PRISONERS" was misleading and could be substantiated.
The CAP Code: 3.1;7.1;18.1;18.3
Response
ConVerse said the "highest circulation" claim was based on the number of copies delivered to prisons. ConVerse said the Oxford English Dictionary defined "circulation" as "the number of copies of each issue of a newspaper, magazine, etc. distributed." They said they believed their "highest circulation" claim was therefore likely to be understood as referring to the number of copies distributed only. They supplied figures, which they described as circulation figures, published respectively in ConVerse and their competitor publication. They believed the figures showed that, over the preceding 15 months, ConVerse had circulated 52,000 copies more than the competitor publication. They said that amounted to an average of 3,500 more copies per month, which they believed justified the "highest circulation" claim. They said that, in addition to England and Wales, their competitor's publication was also circulated to prisons in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and so their competitor's circulation figures for England and Wales were in fact smaller than their total circulation figure. ConVerse said they conducted surveys with prisons every six months to check that the newspaper was being received and distributed satisfactorily and whether too many or too few were being delivered. They said that, for a prison population of 83,000 prisoners in England and Wales spread across 139 prisons, their latest monthly figures (dated February 2009) were that they had printed 48,000.
They said the "national" part of their claim referred to England and Wales. They said the Probation Service referred to itself as the National Probation Service and its remit covered England and Wales but not Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA considered it was reasonable for ConVerse to use the term "national" within England and Wales to refer to distribution within England and Wales. We noted that the figures ConVerse had supplied and described as circulation figures would have been described as distribution figures if they had been subject to normal Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) criteria. We noted that the print invoices ConVerse had supplied showed their print run figures exceeded the distribution figures that the competitor publication claimed for itself. We noted the dictionary definition of "circulation" which ConVerse had supplied, together with the exceptional circumstances of a free newspaper that was distributed to prisons only. We nevertheless considered readers, and in particular advertising buyers who were potential advertisers with ConVerse, would be familiar with ABC's use of the terms "distribution" and "circulation" and that they were therefore likely to understand ConVerse's "highest circulation" claim to mean that they had the highest sales figures. We considered that, because ConVerse had not shown that they had the highest sales figures of any national newspaper distributed to prisons, the claim was likely to mislead. We told ConVerse to remove the claim and, in future, to avoid using the word "circulation" to describe the number of copies of ConVerse distributed.
The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.
Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)
Version 2
CONVERSE: HIGHEST NATIONAL CIRCULATION NEWSPAPER FOR PRISONERS
Mark Leech
View profile
More options Mar 3, 2:46 pm
From: Mark Leech
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 05:46:39 -0800 (PST)
Local: Tues, Mar 3 2009 2:46 pm
Subject: CONVERSE: HIGHEST NATIONAL CIRCULATION NEWSPAPER FOR PRISONERS
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
In light of the comment from John Hirst that Converse does not have
the evidence to substantiate its claim to be the highest circulation
national newspaper for prisoners, I thought I'd comment on the
background to this and the current position.
John Hirst's sidekick, Ben Gunn a lifer in Shepton Mallet and arch
opponent to Converse, complained to the Advertising Standards
Authority that Converse was making untrue claims in saying it was the
highest circulation national newspaper for prisoners.
Quite rightly the ASA investigated the claim we made and the
Investigation Report was out last Friday - it has to be ratified by
the ASA Council, but here is the verbatim report and their
recommendation that the complaint be dismissed.
_______
The Advertising Standards Authority has published the following
Adjudication on ConVerse.
A front page flash on ConVerse - a newspaper distributed to prisons -
stated "THE HIGHEST CIRCULATION NATIONAL NEWSPAPER FOR PRISONERS."
Issue: A reader in Shepton Mallet challenged whether the claim was
misleading and could be substantiated.
Response: ConVerse said the "highest circulation" claim was based on
the number of copies delivered to prisons. ConVerse said the Oxford
English Dictionary defined "circulation" as "the number of copies of
each issue of a newspaper, magazine, etc distributed." They said they
believed their "highest circulation" claim was therefore likely to be
understood as referring to the number of copies distributed only.
They supplied figures, which they described as circulation figures,
published respectively in ConVerse and their competitor publication.
They believed the figures showed that, over the preceding 15 months,
ConVerse had circulated 52,000 copies more than the competitor
publication. They said that amounted to an average of 3,500 more
copies per month, which they believed justified the "highest
circulation" claim. They said that, in addition to England and Wales,
their competitor's publication was also circulated to prisons in
Scotland and Northern Ireland, and so their competitor's circulation
figures for England and Wales were in fact smaller than their total
circulation figure. ConVerse said they conducted surveys with prisons
every six months to check that the newspaper was being received and
distributed satisfactorily and whether too many or too few were being
delivered. They said that, for a prison population of 83,000
prisoners in England and Wales spread across 139 prisons, their latest
monthly figures (dated February 2009) were that they had printed
48,000. They said the "national" part of their claim referred to
England and Wales. They said the Probation Service referred to itself
as the National Probation Service and its remit covered England and
Wales but not Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Assessment: Not upheld
The ASA considered it was reasonable for ConVerse to use the term
"national" within England and Wales to refer to distribution within
England and Wales. We noted that the figures ConVerse had supplied
and described as circulation figures were in fact distribution
figures. We noted that ConVerse had supplied print invoices that
showed their print run figures and that their print run figures
exceeded the distribution figures that the competitor publication
claimed for itself. We considered that the term "circulation" was
open to interpretation to some extent and that, in some situations, it
could be understood to refer to the number of copies of a publication
that were sold. In the context of a newspaper that was distributed
free of charge in prisons, however, and in the light of the print run
figures ConVerse had supplied, which exceeded the numbers claimed by
their competitor, we concluded that ConVerse had substantiated that
they printed and distributed more copies of their newspaper than their
competitor claimed and that the claim that they were the highest
circulation national newspaper for prisoners was therefore unlikely to
mislead readers.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation),
7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.1 and 18.3 (Comparisons) but did not find it
in breach.
Action: No further action necessary.
UPDATE: There will be further action because Jailhouselawyer has contacted the ASA press office for a comment on Mark Leech's unlawful conduct of changing their decision and fraudulently passing it off as coming from the ASA.
Furthermore, in relation to Google Groups, in my view, Mark Leech has violated the Terms of Service and I will be making Google aware of this and ask that Google removes the offending material.
"6. Appropriate Conduct
You agree that you are responsible for your own conduct and communications while using the Service and for any consequences thereof. You agree to use the Service only to send and receive messages and material that are legal, proper and related to the particular Group. By way of example, and not as a limitation, you agree that when using the Service, you will not:
* defame, abuse, harass, stalk, threaten or otherwise violate the legal rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity) of others;
* post any inappropriate, defamatory, infringing, obscene, or unlawful Content;
* post any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret or other proprietary right of any party (the "Rights"), unless you are the owner of the Rights or have the permission of the owner to Post such Content;
* post messages that promote pyramid schemes, chain letters or disruptive commercial messages or advertisements, or anything else prohibited by the Group owner.
* download any file Posted by another user of a Group that you know, or reasonably should know, that cannot be legally distributed in such manner;
* impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other material contained in a file that is Posted;
* restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying the Service;
* use the Service for any illegal or unauthorized purpose;
* remove any copyright, trademark or other proprietary rights notices contained in or on the Service;
* interfere with or disrupt the Service or servers or networks connected to the Service, or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Service;
* use any robot, spider, site search/retrieval application, or other device to retrieve or index any portion of the Service or collect information about users for any unauthorized purpose;
* submit Content that falsely expresses or implies that such Content is sponsored or endorsed by Google;
* create user accounts by automated means or under false or fraudulent pretenses;
* promote or provide instructional information about illegal activities or promote physical harm or injury against any group or individual; or
* transmit any viruses, worms, defects, Trojan horses, or any items of a destructive nature.
International users agree to comply with their own local rules regarding online conduct and acceptable content, including laws regulating the export of data to the United States or your country of residence.
While Google prohibits such conduct and Content in connection with the Service, you understand and agree that you nonetheless may be exposed to such conduct and/or Content and that you use the Service at your own risk".
Coal miners' solicitor struck off
Coal miners' solicitor struck off
A solicitor who once made £13m in a single year has been struck off for his misconduct in handling the compensation claims of sick miners.
Warrington lawyer Andrew Nulty, who made £13m in 2006 at law firm Avalon, has become the third lawyer to be struck off over the government scheme.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found he had taken fees to which he was not entitled.
Mr Nulty, who could not be reached for comment, retired from law in 2007.
He has been ordered to pay £60,000 to cover a proportion of the legal costs of the watchdog Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which brought the action against him.
It is pointless striking off a solicitor who has already retired. As for fining him £60,000 when he has stolen £13 million will not effect him in the least and just goes to show that crime pays! This case needs to be dealt with properly and his bank accounts and assets frozen whilst he is investigated by the Serious Fraud Office.
A solicitor who once made £13m in a single year has been struck off for his misconduct in handling the compensation claims of sick miners.
Warrington lawyer Andrew Nulty, who made £13m in 2006 at law firm Avalon, has become the third lawyer to be struck off over the government scheme.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found he had taken fees to which he was not entitled.
Mr Nulty, who could not be reached for comment, retired from law in 2007.
He has been ordered to pay £60,000 to cover a proportion of the legal costs of the watchdog Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which brought the action against him.
It is pointless striking off a solicitor who has already retired. As for fining him £60,000 when he has stolen £13 million will not effect him in the least and just goes to show that crime pays! This case needs to be dealt with properly and his bank accounts and assets frozen whilst he is investigated by the Serious Fraud Office.
Six jailed over election fraud
Six jailed over election fraud
Six men have been jailed for more than 13 years in total over election fraud in a council vote.
Police started investigating after reports Labour councillor Lydia Simmons lost her Slough Central ward seat to Tory Raja Khan following corrupt practices in May 2007.
Khan, along with two others, had previously admitted the offences. Three other men were convicted by a jury.
Reading Crown Court heard they created hundreds of false names in the weeks running up to the local election and entered them on the voter register.
It became Thames Valley Police's largest ever election fraud investigation ending with the men, all from Slough, sentenced at Reading Crown Court.
Raja Khan, 52, admitted conspiracy to defraud the returning officer and perjury and was sentenced to three-and-a-half years in jail.
Mohammed Basharat Khan, 46, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the returning officer and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. He was jailed for three years and four months.
Mahboob Khan, 46, was jailed for four-and-a-half years after he was found guilty of conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and perjury.
Arshad Mahmood Raja, 53, was found guilty of conspiracy to defraud the returning officer. He was jailed for one-and-a-half years.
Altaf Khan, 31, was found guilty of personation and was sentenced to four months.
Gul Nawaz Khan, 57, pleaded guilty to perjury and was jailed for eight months.
I hope Jack Straw is taking note of this case. It is what the European Court of Human Rights stated in the Prisoners Votes Case is the only legitimate example where the vote can be removed from prisoners. Because the crime is linked to the electoral process.
This is the story Newsnight and Michael Crick failed to report.
Six men have been jailed for more than 13 years in total over election fraud in a council vote.
Police started investigating after reports Labour councillor Lydia Simmons lost her Slough Central ward seat to Tory Raja Khan following corrupt practices in May 2007.
Khan, along with two others, had previously admitted the offences. Three other men were convicted by a jury.
Reading Crown Court heard they created hundreds of false names in the weeks running up to the local election and entered them on the voter register.
It became Thames Valley Police's largest ever election fraud investigation ending with the men, all from Slough, sentenced at Reading Crown Court.
Raja Khan, 52, admitted conspiracy to defraud the returning officer and perjury and was sentenced to three-and-a-half years in jail.
Mohammed Basharat Khan, 46, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the returning officer and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. He was jailed for three years and four months.
Mahboob Khan, 46, was jailed for four-and-a-half years after he was found guilty of conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and perjury.
Arshad Mahmood Raja, 53, was found guilty of conspiracy to defraud the returning officer. He was jailed for one-and-a-half years.
Altaf Khan, 31, was found guilty of personation and was sentenced to four months.
Gul Nawaz Khan, 57, pleaded guilty to perjury and was jailed for eight months.
I hope Jack Straw is taking note of this case. It is what the European Court of Human Rights stated in the Prisoners Votes Case is the only legitimate example where the vote can be removed from prisoners. Because the crime is linked to the electoral process.
This is the story Newsnight and Michael Crick failed to report.
Dartmoor prison turns to captivating tourists
Dartmoor prison turns to captivating tourists
Bogs, fogs, dogs and tales of celebrity convicts are helping to attract 30,000 visitors a year to Dartmoor Prison.
"The Mad Axeman, Frank Mitchell. The Acid Bath Murderer – though he was in here for something else. Éamon de Valera, the Irish leader – he was a political prisoner…" Brian Dingle, the curator of Dartmoor Prison Museum, is ticking off the prison's celebrity occupants on his fingers – or at least, in deference to the Official Secrets Act and identity protection laws, those whose names are already in the public domain. "I think it's because of the Mad Axeman that people think we're high-security," he muses, "But we've never been more than a 'B'. We're 'C' now, the lowest secure category in England and Wales."
Bogs, fogs, dogs and tales of celebrity convicts are helping to attract 30,000 visitors a year to Dartmoor Prison.
"The Mad Axeman, Frank Mitchell. The Acid Bath Murderer – though he was in here for something else. Éamon de Valera, the Irish leader – he was a political prisoner…" Brian Dingle, the curator of Dartmoor Prison Museum, is ticking off the prison's celebrity occupants on his fingers – or at least, in deference to the Official Secrets Act and identity protection laws, those whose names are already in the public domain. "I think it's because of the Mad Axeman that people think we're high-security," he muses, "But we've never been more than a 'B'. We're 'C' now, the lowest secure category in England and Wales."
Friday, May 01, 2009
Gerry McCann knows where Madeleine is
Gerry McCann knows where Madeleine is
Madeleine was here.
Thursday 07 May, 9:00 PM on Channel 4
Two years after Madeleine McCann disappeared, what is life like for parents Kate and Gerry? Cutting Edge follows the family, and the investigators, as...
Categories:
* Documentaries
Madeleine's parents to release image of missing daughter as she is now
Kate and Gerry McCann are due to release an image of how their missing daughter Madeleine may look now if still alive.
t will be two years on Sunday since she vanished from a holiday apartment in the Algarve and the then three-year-old would be five, nearly six.
So, Gerry and Kate McCann employed a forensic imaging artist from the United States' National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children to create a photographic impression of how Madeleine would probably look today.
The "age progression image" will be unveiled on Oprah Winfrey's US chat show, mid-afternoon British time.
Without evidence to the contrary, the McCanns, from Rothley in Leicestershire, still believe there is "a very real likelihood" Madeleine is alive and well.
The age progression will be used on posters for a fresh drive to find their daughter.
It is being shown on the Oprah Fridays Live show ahead of the broadcast of the star's interview with the McCanns, extracts from which were released today.
In the one-hour interview, to be aired in the US on Monday, she asked them: "Do you let yourself go to the worst?"
Mrs McCann replied: "I think it's natural. I know people mean well when they say don't let yourself go there, but as a mom, inevitably there are times when I do. And they're the times that I kind of dip down."
The interviewer asked them about their marriage.
Mr McCann said: "Child abduction, I think, could destroy any family. There's no doubt about it.
"It's one of the most devastating things. But we've been supported tremendously well and I think that's helped us stay strong and stay together.
"Obviously, we're really united in our goal and our love of Madeleine and Sean and Amelie."
Mrs McCann said she keeps Madeleine's room ready for her return and said she goes in there about twice a day.
"Do you talk to her?" asked Oprah.
Mrs McCann replied: "Just say hello, really. Just tell her we're still going to do everything we can to find her."
Typically, the couple are determined to put to good use the media spotlight attracted by the second anniversary of Madeleine's apparent abduction.
Last year, on the first anniversary, they launched an appeal, urging anyone who spoke to police about the missing child to contact their own hotline.
This year, with the mystery of their daughter's disappearance slowly fading from the news agenda, they have the age progression picture, the global reach of the Oprah Winfrey show interview and a Channel 4 documentary.
The couple were buoyed by the news earlier this week that EU funding had been set aside for the Europe-wide alert system for missing children that they had campaigned for.
They hope for another boost in the coming days, in the form of a substantial response to their release of the image.
They then plan to spend Sunday in private. It is thought the Catholics will not visit their local chapel - although prayers will doubtless be said there for the family and their missing child.
Clarence Mitchell, spokesman for the McCanns, said: "It's going to be a busy weekend. The detectives and hotline are prepared for the response to the age progression image.
"For Sunday, Kate and Gerry are determined to keep it as private and non-public an event as possible. They may even try to spend it with relatives."
In a message on their website, FindMadeleine.com, the McCanns said: "As the second anniversary of Madeleine's abduction approaches, there is much still to be done.
"We continue to remain focussed on our aim - to find Madeleine and bring her back home safely. As Madeleine's parents we cannot and will not ever stop doing all we can to find her.
"The search for Madeleine continues with the same strength and determination, and thankfully, there are many people who are continuing to help in a variety of ways."
Comment: In my view, the McCanns are sick pulling this publicity stunt. It is not cutting edge documentary. This is a lie. It is McCann propaganda. There should be balance in the programme. Which means criticisms of the McCanns and their friends.
For example, the accusations made against the McCanns here.
Madeleine was here.
Thursday 07 May, 9:00 PM on Channel 4
Two years after Madeleine McCann disappeared, what is life like for parents Kate and Gerry? Cutting Edge follows the family, and the investigators, as...
Categories:
* Documentaries
Madeleine's parents to release image of missing daughter as she is now
Kate and Gerry McCann are due to release an image of how their missing daughter Madeleine may look now if still alive.
t will be two years on Sunday since she vanished from a holiday apartment in the Algarve and the then three-year-old would be five, nearly six.
So, Gerry and Kate McCann employed a forensic imaging artist from the United States' National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children to create a photographic impression of how Madeleine would probably look today.
The "age progression image" will be unveiled on Oprah Winfrey's US chat show, mid-afternoon British time.
Without evidence to the contrary, the McCanns, from Rothley in Leicestershire, still believe there is "a very real likelihood" Madeleine is alive and well.
The age progression will be used on posters for a fresh drive to find their daughter.
It is being shown on the Oprah Fridays Live show ahead of the broadcast of the star's interview with the McCanns, extracts from which were released today.
In the one-hour interview, to be aired in the US on Monday, she asked them: "Do you let yourself go to the worst?"
Mrs McCann replied: "I think it's natural. I know people mean well when they say don't let yourself go there, but as a mom, inevitably there are times when I do. And they're the times that I kind of dip down."
The interviewer asked them about their marriage.
Mr McCann said: "Child abduction, I think, could destroy any family. There's no doubt about it.
"It's one of the most devastating things. But we've been supported tremendously well and I think that's helped us stay strong and stay together.
"Obviously, we're really united in our goal and our love of Madeleine and Sean and Amelie."
Mrs McCann said she keeps Madeleine's room ready for her return and said she goes in there about twice a day.
"Do you talk to her?" asked Oprah.
Mrs McCann replied: "Just say hello, really. Just tell her we're still going to do everything we can to find her."
Typically, the couple are determined to put to good use the media spotlight attracted by the second anniversary of Madeleine's apparent abduction.
Last year, on the first anniversary, they launched an appeal, urging anyone who spoke to police about the missing child to contact their own hotline.
This year, with the mystery of their daughter's disappearance slowly fading from the news agenda, they have the age progression picture, the global reach of the Oprah Winfrey show interview and a Channel 4 documentary.
The couple were buoyed by the news earlier this week that EU funding had been set aside for the Europe-wide alert system for missing children that they had campaigned for.
They hope for another boost in the coming days, in the form of a substantial response to their release of the image.
They then plan to spend Sunday in private. It is thought the Catholics will not visit their local chapel - although prayers will doubtless be said there for the family and their missing child.
Clarence Mitchell, spokesman for the McCanns, said: "It's going to be a busy weekend. The detectives and hotline are prepared for the response to the age progression image.
"For Sunday, Kate and Gerry are determined to keep it as private and non-public an event as possible. They may even try to spend it with relatives."
In a message on their website, FindMadeleine.com, the McCanns said: "As the second anniversary of Madeleine's abduction approaches, there is much still to be done.
"We continue to remain focussed on our aim - to find Madeleine and bring her back home safely. As Madeleine's parents we cannot and will not ever stop doing all we can to find her.
"The search for Madeleine continues with the same strength and determination, and thankfully, there are many people who are continuing to help in a variety of ways."
Comment: In my view, the McCanns are sick pulling this publicity stunt. It is not cutting edge documentary. This is a lie. It is McCann propaganda. There should be balance in the programme. Which means criticisms of the McCanns and their friends.
For example, the accusations made against the McCanns here.
Man shot dead outside prison
Man shot dead outside prison
A man was shot dead outside Wandsworth Prison in London, the Metropolitan Police said.
Emergency services were called to the south west London jail at about 2.30pm after reports of gunfire.
Police are hunting two men seen running away from the scene.
It is understood the shooting took place in the car park outside the prison. The victim was leaving the jail after visiting an inmate when he was gunned down. At least four shots were fired.
A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: "We were called at 2.30pm to Heathfield Road after reports of a man shot outside the prison.
"On arrival we found a man with gunshot wounds. Ambulance staff were treating him at the scene. He subsequently died.
"Two men were seen running away from the area towards Alma Terrace. Searches are ongoing. Several nearby roads have been cordoned off."
A London Ambulance Service (LAS) spokesman said: "We were called at approximately 2.30pm to reports of a shooting on the Earlsfield Road.
"We sent two single response vehicles and two ambulance crews, an officer and an air ambulance doctor in a car.
"Sadly an adult male patient was pronounced dead at the scene."
A man was shot dead outside Wandsworth Prison in London, the Metropolitan Police said.
Emergency services were called to the south west London jail at about 2.30pm after reports of gunfire.
Police are hunting two men seen running away from the scene.
It is understood the shooting took place in the car park outside the prison. The victim was leaving the jail after visiting an inmate when he was gunned down. At least four shots were fired.
A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: "We were called at 2.30pm to Heathfield Road after reports of a man shot outside the prison.
"On arrival we found a man with gunshot wounds. Ambulance staff were treating him at the scene. He subsequently died.
"Two men were seen running away from the area towards Alma Terrace. Searches are ongoing. Several nearby roads have been cordoned off."
A London Ambulance Service (LAS) spokesman said: "We were called at approximately 2.30pm to reports of a shooting on the Earlsfield Road.
"We sent two single response vehicles and two ambulance crews, an officer and an air ambulance doctor in a car.
"Sadly an adult male patient was pronounced dead at the scene."
Charles Clarke more stalking elephant than horse
Charles Clarke more stalking elephant than horse
'I’m ashamed to be a Labour MP', says Charles Clarke
Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, is facing a string of fresh attacks over his leadership with Charles Clarke, the former Home Secretary, saying he was “ashamed” to be a Labour MP.
It is said an elephant doesn't forget. Charles Clarke was upset when he was replaced as Home Secretary by not fit for purpose John Reid...
'I’m ashamed to be a Labour MP', says Charles Clarke
Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, is facing a string of fresh attacks over his leadership with Charles Clarke, the former Home Secretary, saying he was “ashamed” to be a Labour MP.
It is said an elephant doesn't forget. Charles Clarke was upset when he was replaced as Home Secretary by not fit for purpose John Reid...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)