Rescuing Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected Dictatorship
|
Spin,
not face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the Government's
chosen method of communication. Ordinary people are dangerous. Ordinary
people might ask a question which throws a politician 'off message';
the Cabinet member might reveal himself or herself to be a human being
like us, and not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she might
tell the truth.
Ann Leslie - Daily Mail, September 16, 2004
Blair wants to leave his
mark on history - looks more like a stain to me.
Peter Thorndyke, Diss,
Norfolk - Daily Mail, May 23, 2005
I know I'm me - why do I
need an ID card?
"Sorry, officers, I
don't have an ID card. I never applied for one. It seemed a bit steep
at 300 quid. I do have my free passport, my driving licence and my
London freedom travel pass, each with my photograph. I have my NHS
medical card, with its lengthy number, given me at birth, my RAF
service book with my Armed Forces number, and a chit authorising me to
wear a few gongs -including a General Service Medal with Malaya bar,
for fighting communist terrorists on behalf of my country, or so they
told me.
"I've also got various credit
cards and store cards, all with my signature on the back, generally
good for buying the everyday requrements for life as well as the odd
luxury. If you decide to arrest me, I suppose I'll have to be
photographed and given another number, besides my PINs.
"I'm afraid I haven't got a
pension book; it was taken away."
"By thieves, sir?"
"No ... well, not exactly. By the
Government. By the way, may I see your warrant cards please, gentlemen?"
Oh dear, they've disappeared. E.
Harry Gumer, Romford, ESSEX - Daily Mail, June 1, 2005
NO means NO
When does NO mean MAYBE?
When it's not the answer the EU wants. With the courageous French
NON resounding in their ears, shabby, undemocratic self-interested
leaders of Europe propose ignoring the part of their precious
constitution that requires ratification by all members and
continuing without one of the biggest founder members to
prevent derailing the gravy train.
As in Ireland,
they refuse to accept any NO votes, ignoring the will of the people,
and re-stage votes until they can engineer the 'correct' answer. Sadly,
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw dances to their tune like a puppet on a
string. With tactics such as these, how can anyone really believe the
EU has our interests at heart. Letter from Steve Penny, Kingsnorth, Kent - Daily
Mail, June1, 2005
Surely
the French result makes the £1million the EU recently spent on a
treaty signing ceremony seem a trifle premature and extravagant. Letter from Keith Wiseman, Bury, Lancs. - Daily Mail,
June1, 2005
|
Britain has
traditionally been one of the biggest net contributors to the EU
because we do not get as much money back from Brussels in farm and
regional subsidies as our rivals.
According to
Treasury figures, between 1995-2002, Britain's average contribution
taking the rebate into account, was £2.6billion, or £43.55
per head of population.
The French -
the biggest recipient of farm subsidies - contributed £1billion a
year or £16.08 per head of their population.
|
|
Tony
Blair should know that respect comes by example - from the
top. If a country's leader has no respect for the rule of
international law and no respect for the truth, how can
he expect anyone to have respect. Letter
from P.J.Atkinson, Ashford, Kent - Daily Mail, January 12,
2006
The
Chancellor's single greatest act of vandalism in almost
nine years in office has been his wanton destruction of
Britain's private retirement industry. By slapping a massive
tax on pension funds, now worth
£7.3billion a year, he has helped to turn
the best private retirement industry in Europe into a basket-case
in perpetual crisis. Together with the adoption of European
accounting rules - which make it much riskier to operate
a company pension scheme - hundreds of firms have shut their
final salary plans to new employees and slashed benefits
to existing staff. From
Allister Heath: "I've seen the future and its grey"
in THE SPECTATOR - April 15, 2006
Nine
years ago the British people were sold a fantasy of clean
and competent government of principle and honesty. Its shiny
wrappings stripped away, the product now reveals its true
nature: Personal greed, arrogance, incompetence, shamelessness,
rash warmongering and an inability to accept - as is clear
to almost everyone else - that it is time to go. Editorial
- The Mail on Sunday, May 28, 2006
|
June
16 , 2006 (1133 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 2500 US - 113 UK - >60,000? civilians - 25 media
Judges
wasting days on cases that used to be decided in half an hour.
Violent serial ofrenders walking free. Police and lawyers in despair.
What oaur reporter found when he spent a week at the Old Bailey.
So is this ...
Justice
denied?
by
Tom Rawstorne - Daily Mail, June 26, 2006
The
time is 2.15pm on Tuesday and at the Old Bailey the customary
hour-and-a-quarter lunch break is just about over. In Court Nine
there's a sentencing to finish and one of the defendants, Carl
Cumberbatch, hands over his bus pass to his mother before taking
his seat in the dock.
"It
doesn't run out for two days," she jokes to a male companion,
"but I guess he won't be needing it."
The
crime this 18-year-old recidivist thug is being sentenced for
took place just over a year ago. Then, Cumberbatch and two friends
attacked an innocent passer-by in front of his wife and three
young children. Their victim was beaten about the head with a
plank of wood, smashed in the knee with a metal pole and pelted
with missiles.
"A
dreadful attack on an unarmed man," the presiding judge,
His Honour Judge Gerald Gordon, gravely concludes when he resumes
his position in a throne-like chair at the front of the court.
But - and it is a very big but - apparently it is not 'dreadful'
enough for Cumberbatch to be jailed.
Hand
back the bus pass mother, and dry your tears, Young Carl is coming
home. This is despite the fact that he has been in trouble since
the age of 15, when he was convicted of possessing an offensive
weapon. Despite the fact that one month after that conviction,
for which he was given a 12-month supervision order, he and three
others forced their way into the home of a man with learning difficulties
and beat him semi-conscious (Sentence? Two-year supervision order).
And
despite the fact that, with regard to the latest crime, the probation
service has warned that Cumberbatch is dangerous and that there
is a high risk of him offending again. Never mind all that. Judge
Gordon decides to give him one last chance - an 18-month, non-custodial
community order - and a good ticking-off.
"You
are the only person who can make something of your life if you
choose to do so," he sternly informs the defendant. "Don't
let me see you again>"
Exist
Judge Gordon. Exist Cumberbatch right. It's the end of another
case in another court and because it's a relatively minor matter,
it would normally receive no coverage in the media, national or
local. That's a shame, because the devil is in the detail and
it actually provides a fascinating insight into the way in which
justice is administered in Britain in 2006.
I
have spent the past week at the Old Bailey in London, where the
country's most serious trials are heard, listening in on criminals
being sentenced for everything from murder to cannabis cultivation.
My time there coincided with the ongoing controversy over sentencing,
a controversy sparked by the case of the paedophile Craig Sweeney,
who kidnapped and abused a girl of three, yet could be back on
the streets in little more than five years.
Politicians
blamed the judge (Home Secretary John Reid branded the sentence
'unduly lenient') and then the judges hit back, blaming politicians
(the Lord Chancellor claimed they had been made the 'whipping
boys' for flaws in a system overseen by Government). At
the heart of the argument lies a new piece of legislation, the
Criminal Justice Act 2003, brought in by Labour to 'rebalance
the system in favour of victims, witnesses and community'.
Noble
enough aims, but after a week in the Old Bailey I can only conclude
there's still some way to go. Indeed, after a decade covering
crown courts, I'm surprised by the lack of confidence - bordering
at times on confusion - shown by judges and barristers as they
attempt to interpret the Act.
Cases
that would have taken half an hour in the past now take half a
day, despite the fact that judges supposedly have less discretion,
not more, as to how they sentence. To fully understand why this
is, it is first necessary to understand the Act.
It
came into force in April last year and many of its provisions
apply only to crimes committed after that date. Because it generally
takes a year or so from the commission of a crime for it to reach
its courtroom conclusion, only gradually are such cases reaching
the point of sentencing. Specifically, the Act makes the imposition
of certain sentences mandatory for certain offences.
Most
important of all are the 'dangerous offender' provisions within
the Act which aim to protect the public from criminals thought
most likely to reoffend. To pass the 'dangerousness test', as
it is referred to in court, the offender must be convicted of
a 'specified offence' of which some 150 are listed (ranging from
serious violent and sexual offences, such as wounding with intent
and rape, to relatively minor ones such as affray and indecent
exposure) or a 'serious specified offence' (one that carries a
sentence of life or ten years plus).
If
the defendant has been convicted of such an offence, the next
step for the court is to decide if there is a high risk of him
doing so again. And if so, is there a significant risk that the
future offence will cause 'serious harm' to the public? If the
judge believes the answer is yes, then he must impose one of three
mandatory sentences.
The
first of these applies if the offence is publishable with less
than ten years. In that case, a minimum custodial term of 12 months
must be imposed. If the crime is worthy of ten years' imprisonment
or more, then the judge must impose either a life sentence or
one of 'imprisonment for public protection' - basically a life
sentence under a different name.
Public
protection sentences are 'indeterminate', meaning that rather
than a specific sentence, the judge will set a minimum term. The
idea behind this is that 'dangerous criminals can now be kept
in jail indefinitely or until such time as it is thought they
are safe to be released. All well and good, but here's the sticking
point. The decision on the timing of
release when the minimum tariff has been reached is made by the
Parole Board - a body in which the public has little faith. It
is for this reason that the length of the minimum tariff has become
the focus of controversy.Critics argue that it's all
very well saying Prisoner A could be locked up for ever,
but what if, in the real world, the Parole Board thinks differently?
Back
to the Old Bailey and, all around, the theory of the new Act is
being put into practice. In Court Nine I watch as a gang of five
robbers - Lanre Hameed, 24, Marcus Onayiga, 25, Roland Okpara,
26, Barry Pryce, 24, and Bruce Taylor, also 24, - are led into
dock. Their case is of particular interest to the public because
of the issues it raises about reoffending and early release.
Hameed,
the ringleader, for example, had a long history of convictions
for robbery, culminating in a five-year jail sentence in May 2001.
But he was released early on licence and between January and May,
2005, he and his gang held up a travel agent, post office and
off-licence. Firearms were used and Hameed shot the driver of
a refrigerated truck in the leg.
They
are serious crimes by a criminal with serious form and any right-thinking
person would expect Hameed, a drug addict, to be locked up for
a serious length of time. So, what does he get under the new Act?
Five years minimum. Judge Stephen Kramer QC calculates the sentence
as follows.
First,
Hameed clearly passes the 'dangerousness test'. As a result, he
can be sentenced under the 'public protection' banner and given
an indeterminate sentence. The judge works out that normally he
would have got 18 years. But because he pleaded guilty to charges
of robbery, possessing a firearm and grievous bodily harm, that
is reduced by a third. The 12-year sentence is then automatically
halved because, under Home Office guidelines, all prisoners are
considered for parole after half their sentence, and then a further
351 days are taken off for time served on remand.
Any
criticism about sentence length should not be laid at the feet
of the judge, however, He is clearly sticking to the rules and
his starting point of 18 years seems fair. It is the legislation
that imposes the discounts and places the burden of deciding fitness
for release on the Parole Board - and only when cases such as
this reach that point will we know what teeth these indeterminate
sentences have in reality.
A
similar acknowledgment of the judge's diligence is needed when
considering the case of Cumberbatch. In sentencing him and his
two friends, Judge Gordon takes extraordinary care that everything
is done in accordance with the Act. Indeed,
when I enter the court at 10 am, I expect sentencing will be finished
in half an hour. Instead, it does not wrap up until almost 3 pm.
The reason is that the judge must ensure he applies the 'dangerousness
test' to each defendant.
In
making this decision he relies largely on two areas - previous
convictions and a pre-sentence report by the probation services.
In these reports, an assessment or risk is graded as low, medium
or high. In the case of Cumberbatch's co-defendants, Anthony Eyiango,
19, and 18-year-old Dwain Warner, that risk is put at medium and
low respectively and their previous is relatively minor. As a
result, Judge Gordon concludes the test is not met and sentences
accordingly.
Eyiango,
who admitted hitting the man over the head with a plank of wood,
receives two years in prison for GBH, half of which will be spent
on licence.
Warner,
guilty of affray, receives a 12-month community order and must
do 120 hours unpaid work.
The
case of Cumberbatch is far more borderline because of his previous
convictions and because the probation service has assessed him
as a high risk of reoffending. A report states it is something
that 'could happen at any time and the impact could be serious'.
But, ultimately, it's for the judge to decide.
"As
I have already made clear, I have had to assess dangerousness,"
he tells Cumbarbatch, from Catford, South-East London, who has
admitted affray. "I have come to the conclusion, not without
hesitation, I should give you one last chance to keep out of trouble."
And so, instead of a custodial sentence, he imposes an 18-month
community order with additional requirements such as unpaid community
work.
Is
it the right sentence? Having heard details of Cumberbatch's previous,
I have my doubts, but again, only time will tell. The final footnote
to my week in the Old Bailey - and to the Criminal Justice Act
2003 - is provided by two horrific murders.
The
first, which received widespread publicity, was that of gay barman
Jody Dobrowski. The 24-year-old died after he was set upon on
Clapham Common, a notorious South London gay cruising area. Thomas
Pickford, 25, and decorator Scott Walker, 33, punched and kicked
him to the ground 'as if trying to kill an animal', the Old Bailey
heard.
Sentencing
them, Judge Brian Barker concludes that the crime was motivated
by homophobia and jails each man for at least 28 years. The next
day, reports of the sentence are splashed across the papers. This
is the first time, they note, that a judge has used powers within
the 2003 Act that allow for an extra-long sentence for homophobic
'hate crimes'.
But
it is interesting to note that on the same day in the Old Bailey,
another murderer, Lee Lindsay, is handed an even longer sentence,
of 30 years. Together with an accomplice, the 21-year-old had
entered a house in Harrow, North-West London, and stabbed a man
to death. He also attempted to murder two others during the robbery.
Again,
the high minimum term emanates from the Act, which adds weight
to murders if they are committed for gain. They seem sensible
provisions, but during the Lindsay case the new legislation throws
up one further conundrum.
Although
it is evident to all concerned that Lindsay has to be sent to
prison for life for murder, the court still has to go through
the motions of the 'dangerousness test' for the charges of attempted
murder and conspiracy to rob. This is despite the fact that even
if an indeterminate sentence were handed out, it would be superseded
by the one for murder. At one point, the case is almost adjourned
to allow for the preparation of further reports to meet the demands
of the Act. "It's madness," one defence barrister tells
me. "Absolute madness."
Police
Officers, too, have voiced concerns over the difficulties caused
by the Act. In the end, at the Old Bailey, common sense prevails
and shorter fixed sentences are imposed for the lesser offences
- so perhaps it's just an anomaly that can be worked out in time.
And
as the Sweeney case has shown, when such anomalies do arise, the
public would prefer that the authorities fix them fast - rather
than fight amongst themselves.
If you have
suggestions for additional subjects, or material to include in the
pages linked to the subjects listed, please contact the webmaster.
