Celebrities, The Media , Privacy, Rumour and the fallout.

Once confined to a certain type of Publication, all areas of the media now have an insatiable need for, and an addiction to Celebrity news, gossip, or rumour. A need so great, that in some cases they appear to have made someone a Celebrity, just so they can report on them.

A large number of celebrities have used this insatiable need, to form a symbiotic relationship with the Media to enhance, extend, or rejuvenate their careers and in some cases made considerable money from doing so.

The result is that in the eyes of the Media, a Celebrity regardless of whether they actively court the media, or not, does not have the right to separate their private and public lives, if it sells Newspapers, Magazines, or fills a broadcast News slot.

Every action has a reaction and the result is a law designed to protect Children and other Special Cases against being named in the Media, is being used to protect rich Celebrities from having their indiscretions revealed. As usual a Law drafted by Lawyers, has been perverted by Lawyers to enrich themselves and as a by product, protect their clients.

Unless the a criminal law is being broken (or in the case of Politicians, National security compromised), I have little or no interest in the indiscretions of those in Public Life, but the effect of, what I see as the misuse of the Super Injunction did irritate me.

My irritation was increased as in some of these cases there is an element of; 'It's the rich wot gets the pleasure. It's the poor wot gets the blame', where the Celebrity's privacy is protected, but the other person involved is not. As they are not rich enough to obtain their own Super Injunction, the media focus on them. So they are 'named and shamed' but the Celebrity remains hidden behind a legal screen.

What has finally pushed my irritation level to the point of writing this has been how, in the absence of facts about who is protected, malicious rumours and gossip, over Social Networks and Blogs,( on servers outside UK Jurisdiction) have gained a following at the expense of People who have not obtained an injunction and apparently having nothing to hide, but have been forced to use both the Mainstream Media and the same Social Networks that falsely named them, to defend themselves.

The law can do nothing to protect those falsely accused and ironically can also do nothing if someone who is protected by a Super Injunction is named!
So a law that was passed for good reasons, but since perverted by Lawyers, has now due social networks and blogs outside British Jurisdiction, not only being subverted, but has resulted in people being falsely accused of using it. My late Father used to say the Law is an Ass, but I suspect he would, if still alive replace I s with an r and append an e.

Prisoners and the Vote - No Change required!

The BBC's Nick Robinson published an article earlier this morning (0515 20 Jan 2011) with the title: Ministers in climbdown over prisoner vote rights in which he writes that the government is preparing to scale back plans to give the right to vote to thousands of prisoners serving sentences of under four years. They now propose to limit the right to those sentenced to a year or less.

But this misses the point, Belgium and Eire, and indeed 11 other countries who signed the 1953 European Convention on Human Rights do NOT allow Prisoners the vote. Yet they are not being singled out by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Belgium goes further and can deny the vote to Prisoners even after they are released.

So why has Britain been singled out? Because the ban is automatic rather than part of the sentencing procedure. So just change the law, so that every year handed down as a sentence is given the same number of years voting ban (this to remain in force even if paroled, or early release).

However better still face down the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and MPs will have the opportunity to defy the court's ruling in a couple of weeks' time when the Commons debates a motion tabled by Conservative David Davis and Labour's Jack Straw (I for one will be watching how the MP for my constituency votes on this).

Actually I would much rather the vote was on withdrawing completely from the 1953 Convention and instead preparing over the next few years a British bill of Human Rights which is based on the safety of citizens and the protection of victims of crime rather than the rights of those whose Criminal or other acts endanger the Citizens of this Country.

Related Post in this blog:
EU Law overrides UK Law and (some) Convicts will get the Vote 02nd November 2010
Douglas Carswell MP: Governed by judges? 05th November 2010

Other Articles:

• Tory rebels given green light to crush prison votes
• Far fewer prisoners will now get the right to vote
• Votes for (some) prisoners to get a vote in Parliament

Granted Asylum in Britain dies an al-Qaeda Martyr in Afghanistan!

Having just read (belatedly) the Telegraph Article about Mahmoud Abu Rideh a British al-Qaeda refugee killed in Afghanistan. I thought I would do some limited research on the Background of this man.

Background to Mahmoud Abu Rideh in Britain:
Mahmoud Abu Rideh was born in Jordan to Palestinian refugee parents. He came to the UK in January 1995 and claimed asylum, whilst living off benefits with his wife and five children. Initially His asylum claim was refused because his story was not credible but he appealed and was granted refugee status in November 1998!

In December 2001 he was detained under anti-terrorism laws after the then home secretary David Blunkett concluded he was "an active supporter of various international terrorist groups, including those with links to Osama Bin Laden's terrorist network". The reasons for which are covered in the Telegraph Article and I quote:

The central allegation was that he had been involved in fund raising and distribution of funds for terrorist groups with links to al-Qaeda as well as procuring false documents and facilitation of the travel for volunteers to training camps in Afghanistan.

Although he was living on benefits, he was said to have raised around £100,000 in just two years, using the Arab Bank in Park Lane to funnel his money to al-Qaeda.

He also held an account at the Wimbledon branch of HSBC entitled “Islamic Services Bureau – Treasurer’s Account.”

He was said to be closely involved with senior extremists and associates of Osama bin Laden both in Britain and overseas.

He spent most of his time after his arrest at Broadmoor Secure Hospital (I think all Islamist Terrorists are mentally deranged, but the Law says otherwise). Surprisingly he was granted bail in January 2005, due to his deteriorating mental health (surely all the more reason for keeping him in a secure environment?).

This followed the overturning by the Law Lords of the Detention without Trial System for Terrorism Suspects (on the 16th December 2004) as this was against European human rights laws. The same day as Charles Clarke became Home Secretary. As the European Laws are binding on this Country a way had to be found that was acceptable to the unelected people who made these laws and so Control Orders were introduced. This almost exactly coincided with Mahmoud Abu Rideh's release on bail. Not surprisingly Mahmoud Abu Rideh became one of those subject to a Control Order.

In early 2007 Mahmoud Abu Rideh came before Mr Justice Beatson who on the 4th April 2007 ruled the order should be quashed, saying "its cumulative effects in my judgment deprive [Mr Rideh] of liberty, and the secretary of state has no power to make such an order". This judgement came as no surprise to Home Secretary John Reid (who would probably, if he had stayed in Office the best Home Secretary in living memory) as Mr Justice Beatson had made the same ruling in a previous case. However unlike most Home Secretaries who would have been 'extremely disappointed' by this judgement, John Reid immediately issued a new Control Order.

From this moment on there and increasing campaign to get the control order on Mahmoud Abu Rideh lifted.
When John Reid was sadly replaced by Jacqui Smith (who's lack of suitability for the post almost matched David Blunkett's) the campaign got seriously underway with Amnesty International (UK Branch) launching an appeal and PetionOnLine (they got 1078 Signatures).

By June 2009 he was working on generating his own publicity by appearing at the reception desk of the Guardian Newspaper. This resulted in the Guardian taking up the cause of this 'tragic figure' with his Walking Stick, worn clothes, visible evidence of self-harm and his tale of how his wife had finally left him with the five children to live with her parents in Jordan. The result was a 'heartbreaking article' and video: A day in the life of a terror suspect a man driven to despair due his loss of his freedom, his family and with suicide on his mind. Didn't actually mention his pre-British life working for a school in Afghanistan for Arab Speaking children, many of those fathers were some of the world’s most wanted men, or his later work with Islamic Services Bureau in Pakistan, run by Osama bin Laden’s mentor Abdullah Azzam. Or even his publicly known fund raising support of Terrorism whilst in the UK. But hey why spoil a good story!

On the 3rd July 2009 Amnesty International was able to trumpet that the Home Office, now under Alan Johnson had agreed to allow Mahmoud Abu Rideh to leave Britain (and Never Come back, although wasn't mention in the Amnesty release). So in September 2009 he left Britain but NOT off to Jordan to see the Wife and Children, no destination Syria and by whatever means eventually arriving in Afghanistan and then dying with a group of al-Qaeda Terrorists.

For 14 Years this man and his family lived in Britain at cost to the Taxpayer was a supporter of terrorism and when able was an active participant in raising funds for terrorist organisations and finally achieved what was probably his life's ambition of dying a terrorist. I hope whose who supported him like Mr Justice Beatson, the Guardian, Amnesty International and those who signed petitions are proud that they assisted him to achieve his goal of becoming a Martyr for a cause, that would, if it could, ensure that the very institutions and the people that supported him would be eliminated. In a world run by al-Qaeda, life in the 12th Century AD would appear utopian!

Students Protestors, no Criminal Vandalising Hooligans

Actually I am being unfair, firstly only a proportion of the student protestors in London actually were involved in the attacks on People and Property. However far too many of those non-involved seemed to have found these actions at least in part acceptable and only a tiny minority tried to stop it.

Also I think I am being slightly unfair to Vandals and Hooligans, who are locked in a world with little future and lack the ambition and/or intelligence to escape from it. Whereas those involved in the Mob Violence in London are supposed to be well educated, bright people who will make a positive contribution in the future.

Well I hope those who participated in the Vandalism and Violence discover their future is blighted not only by being brought to justice and having a criminal record and a really hefty fine,  furthermore, if they are indeed students being excluded from their current university, or college and banned from attending any other in the UK for life. 

For the small number who attempted to stop the Vandalism and attacks, I salute you as it was a brave thing to do. Whilst Policing of the Protest may draw criticism (and it wouldn't matter how it was policed there would be criticism), the Police Officers on the 'frontline' who faced the Mob deserve the highest praise and once more they took causalities in the performance of their duties.

However in general the 'Students' have lost the last smidgen of my sympathy for their plight and as a tweet I received put it: After the childish behaviour today/tonight if the govt had another vote tomorrow the fees would go up to £12k. A view I can understand, but probably in time I won't totally agree with.

Some Questions for MP Mike Hancock: 1st why hire a Foreign National?

In the furore over whether Katia Zatuliveter is, or is not an agent of the SVR (KGB by any other name is still the KGB), some questions don't appear to have been asked.

• The most important being: Why employ a foreign national as a research assistant?
• Were there no suitably qualified Citizens of the United Kingdom?
• If, as stated she was the best person for the Job, how was the Job advertised and how many applicants interviewed?
  
• Was her ability to speak Russian a consideration? Because there are a large number of Russian Speaking UK Citizens. But this may have been a consideration as Mr Hancock does it appear have more than passing affection for Russia (as a state) and has made numerous visits there. Although exactly how many is publicly difficult to know, as his Passport 'fell into the sea'. However this begs another question:
  
• Who paid for this unknown number of trips to Russia?

A little more on Mike Hancock MP
Also there are it appears concerns about Mr Hancock himself, not that he is a spy, but his more than somewhat 'rose coloured' view of Russia plus his unusually large number of detailed questions on Defence Matters. Well as he is MP for Portsmouth South and Portsmouth is a major Royal naval base this might be understandable! But majority of these were a series questions were about the Trident Flotilla which is not Portsmouth based and the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston. He is also a denier of the Armenian Genocide and a 'friend' of the government of Azerbaijan. There are rumours he is womaniser and he is currently on Police Bail on suspicion of indecent assault (this will be heard in January 2011). He is also involved in supporting worthy causes notably: NSPCC, Captive Animals Protection Society and has been involved with MENCAP.

Links:
Mike Hancock CBE - Personal Website Which has a Heading: Standing up for Portsmouth.

Mike Hancock on Wikipedia

Learco Chindamo Paroled Killer arrested for Alleged Robbery

When he was 15 Learco Chindamo was in a gang and was personally responsible for murdering Philip Lawrence in west London, when as Headmaster of his school, Mr Lawrence went to the assistance of a Pupil being attacked by the Gang.

When convicted Learco Chindamo was given an indefinite sentence, which at minimum was to be 12 Years. After 15 Years in Prison he was released on Parole, despite being refused previously for not making 'sufficient progress'.

Just four Months after he convinced the Parole Board he had reformed and that he would spend the rest of his life atoning for his crime and was placed in a Parole Hostel he is arrested for carrying out an alleged violent mugging. Obviously his Parole licence will be revoked and he will be returned to Prison.

Now whilst I seriously doubt he should have been given parole in the first place, as an Italian Citizen he should have been immediately deported on his release from Prison and banned from ever entering the UK again.
But NO, a Judge ruled three years ago (when he was still in prison) that such a move would breach his Human rights, despite a warning from the Home Office that Chindamo "represents a genuine and present and sufficiently serious threat to the public in principle as to justify his deportation". . So instead he is free to breach the Human Rights of others.

Speaking to the Telegraph Philip Lawrence's widow, Frances Lawrence said:
"My first thought was 'My God'. I feel shocked. I find it odd that he is arrested so soon after the 'atonement'. What does it say about the justice system and the notion of what is justice? True justice surely cannot pick and choose who it supports. In this case it appears Mr Chindamo is being given every help, while my family is being hung out to dry."

She also said she had not been informed about where Chindamo was living after he was freed and added: "The last few months have been the worst time for me since Philip died."

The full Telegraph Article can be found here: Philip Lawrence's killer Learco Chindamo arrested

This once again raises the same questions that keep being asked and never receive a satisfactory answer:

• If only three years ago the Home Office was stating that he represents a genuine and present and sufficiently serious threat to the public in principle as to justify his deportation, Why was he even considered for Parole?
  
• If given Parole he should have been deported, and this raises the question of what David Cameron is doing to honour a pledge he made in opposition to scrap the Human Rights Act?
• If Paroled and not deported why was he not Monitored closely?
• Assuming he is returned to Prison, then he should be given at least 20 Years, but I suspect he will be given 3 to 5. This man should not be allowed out whilst still a danger to the Public ,but when will Judges and Ministers take this onboard?

In addition I wonder:

• How much support the Lawrence Family received in the last 15 years compared to the support Learco Chindamo has had in attempts to rehabilitate him?
• What percentage of the cost of keeping Learco Chindamo in Prison for 15 years was paid to the Lawrence Family for the murder of a Husband, father and brave Man?

I doubt if in either case it was more than a tiny fraction of that spent on a Murderer.
I am sure Theresa May will as usual be 'extremely disappointed', but I am sorry Home Secretary that is not good enough. Let us have a Human Rights Act, where it is the Victims Human Rights that are protected, not the perpetrators. Deport people who are a danger to our society and ensure they never come back, regardless of the consequences to them in the country to which they are deported.

The only ones to come out of the Student Protests with Honour!

The only people to come out of the Student Protest in London Yesterday with Honour were the Policemen and Women who stood their ground and despite being attacked with 'missiles' as well as abuse acted with restraint and paid a price for it with a total of 41 officers received injuries, and a "small number" were taken to hospital for treatment before being released.

A policeman who was injured in the clashes Photo: EDDIE MULHOLLAND
From Telegraph Article: Student tuition fees protests: police got it wrong, says Nick Herbert

At least their boss, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson recognised their fortitude, nay bravery in an internal message to staff:

Sir Paul paid tribute:
He said: "Many faced thuggish and disgraceful behaviour which has been well publicised in the media. Their bravery and professionalism in the face of adversity was hugely commendable and, once again, demonstrates the commitment and dedication of our officers in the Met."

"We know that the vast majority of protesters were entirely peaceful and well behaved, but it is clear that some chose to engage in senseless criminality. Sadly, some of our colleagues, my officers, were injured in the line of duty and some came perilously close to being seriously injured."

"This, once again, demonstrates the willingness of officers to put themselves in harm's way for the people of London."

Sir Paul said those responsible for the violence must be found and brought to justice "swiftly".
He added: "That is our number one priority and an investigation to achieve this is already well under way."

Student protest against tuition fees turns violent at Millbank Photo: Dominic Lipinski/PA
From Telegraph Article: Student tuition fee protest: Infantile behaviour

I certainly hope that all those who engaged in Criminal Damage (Smashing windows in private cars was NOT a Political Act, or Protest, but Criminal Damage for which those responsible should pay, both financially and with a Criminal Record).
Whilst some would argue attacking Conservative Party HQ, could be construed as Political, as itwas both Violent and in some cases, as e.g. the dropping of a Fire Extinguisher from the Roof of the building was life threatening. In this case custodial sentences are appropriate.

The Senior levels of the Metropolitan Police are going through a period of navel gazing and soul searching over what they could/should have done and those who weren't there (including the Politicians - See: Student tuition fees protests: police got it wrong, says Nick Herbert ) will voice what they would have done better, but to some extent they are in a no win situation; A much larger presence, especially of Riot Police and they would have been accused of being 'too heavy handed', or as in this case too few and they are blamed anyway.

My views on the Protest in general have been summoned up, so much better than I could myself in this article in the Telegraph Online (and the Headlines says it all): Student tuition fee protest: Infantile behaviour

Dealing with Mentally Ill & Drug Addicted Criminals

In the Telegraph online for 08th November 2010 there is an Article, Headlined: Drug-addicted criminals will be spared jail which indicates Kenneth Clarke and his officials at the Ministry of Justice are working out plans to get the Police and the Courts to the Mentally ill and Drug Addicts from Prison sentencing to “treatment-based accommodation”.

As in previous posts on Law & Order, my views are that far too many people with Mental illness end up in Prison because of a total failure of the Care in the Community approach to their needs. Back in July in my Post: Crime & Punishment UK - Getting Emotive I covered this:

Reverse the Care in the Community approach to those with Mental Health Problems and as this will take a long time beginning by building (or converting existing buildings) to secure institutions and moving these people out of prison and then over a decade moving down the scale of danger to sheltered accommodation for the non-dangerous. Yes this will cost money, but these people should not be in prison, but at the same time cannot function in normal society, leading them into crime.

The Telegraph Article pre-empts the Planned Whitepaper, but the indication is that the plan is to reverse Care in the Community on the cheap. There is no indication that 'Treatment Centres' for the mentally ill will provide them with long term care and residence, nor that the Centres will be designed to handle the needs of the varied levels of illness.

Moving on to Drug Addicts: I did not go into detail in my July Post, other than note that there should be mandatory treatment for Drug and Alcohol Addiction.
I would go further, for those Addicted to Class A Drugs the treatment should be intensive and they should be detained in the 'Treatment Centre'  for a minimum of three months after they are deemed 'clean' and for the next two years they are to visit a Parole Office Weekly for testing. Failure to attend a test or the test shows a return to Drug Abuse would result in an immediate return to the treatment centre.

Where Prison for an Addict is deemed necessary (Crimes of Violence, Murder, Armed Robbery etc), the Mandatory Treatment is to be carried out there. But Prisons must start to crackdown on the smuggling to Drugs into Prisons, with all visitors to convicts treated as potential 'drug mules' and checks to be carried out on Prison Staff to ensure they are not bringing Drugs in for Prisoners.

My other concern is that Mandatory Treatment of Addicts and Intensive Searching of Prison Visitors and Staff, will fall foul of the European Court of Human Rights. So that situation has to be dealt with 'head on' by removing this Country from its jurisdiction.

Douglas Carswell MP: Governed by judges?

Republication: See Original Blog Post by: Douglas Carswell MP: Governed by judges?

Abu Hamza must have a passport. Prisoners must have votes.
Ever get the feeling public policy is increasingly made by judges, rather than anyone you elected?

And then we wonder why voters are starting to get hacked off with politicians for talking the talk, but not taking action?

Posted on 5 November 2010 by Douglas Carswell

Whilst Mr Carswell an I do on some subjects have very differening views, on this one we see eye to eye!

OH and our Prime Minister has joined the Theresa May "disappointed" Fan Club
Mr Cameron Disappointed doesn't Cut it, this man should be stripped of his citizenship by Royal decree!

EU Law overrides UK Law and (some) Convicts will get the Vote

First a statement of my view on this: Convicts should NOT get the Vote!

Sadly as a British Citizen I do NOT have the right to Vote on this issue, my Elected Representative does NOT have the right to try and get this ruling over turned, 'the extremely disappointed' Theresa May as Home Secretary can do nothing (which is actually no surprise, but on this occasion not her fault), the Prime Minister has tried, but doesn't have the power to change this European Court of Human Rights Ruling.

So we in Britain have no say on this! This is the unacceptable face of EU Power via the European Court of Human Rights to force Member Countries to accept Laws they don't want. Although I disagree with the ruling (even if passed by UK Parliament), my real irritation, nay anger is that this has been imposed over our Sovereign Rights as a Nation.

For a more objective view on this (rather than my rant) see:
BBC: Convicted prisoners to get vote after European ruling

The Man from MI5 Gives a Speech

In the Telegraph on the 17the Sept is the text of a speech given to the Worshipful Company of Security Professionals by Jonathan Evans head of MI5 in which he covers what the service sees as the current threats to British Homeland Security.

• The revival of Terrorist Activity in the Province of Northern Island.
  Extract: A persistent rise in terrorist activity and ambition in Northern Ireland over the last three years.
  Perhaps we were giving insufficient weight to the pattern of history over the last hundred years which shows that whenever the main body of Irish republicanism has reached a political accommodation and rejoined constitutional politics, a hardliner rejectionist group would fragment off and continue with the so called "armed struggle".
  
• The Al Qaida and its affiliates and those inspired by its ideology.
  Extract: To sum up the Al Qaida related threat. The country continues to face a real threat from Al Qaida-related terrorism. That threat is diverse in both geography and levels of skill involved but it is persistent and dangerous and trying to control it involves a continual invisible struggle. Counter-terrorist capabilities have improved in recent years but there remains a serious risk of a lethal attack taking place. I see no reason to believe that the position will significantly improve in the immediate future.
  
  
• The espionage threat - Both Traditional and Cyber.
  Extract: Espionage did not start with the Cold War and it did not end with it either. Both traditional and cyber espionage continue to pose a threat to British interests, with the commercial sector very much in the front line along with more traditional diplomatic and defence interests. Using cyberspace, especially the Internet, as a vector for espionage has lowered the barriers to entry and has also made attribution of attacks more difficult, reducing the political risks of spying.
  

I felt one of the most important messages delivered in the speech was contained within the part dealing with the Al Qaida threat:

It is interesting to note in this context that in the last ten years what might be called a "zero tolerance” attitude to terrorist risk in Great Britain has become more widespread. While it has always been the case that the authorities have made every effort to prevent terrorist attacks, it used to be accepted as part of everyday life that sometimes the terrorists would get lucky and there would be an attack. In recent years we appear increasingly to have imported from the American media the assumption that terrorism is 100% preventable and any incident that is not prevented is seen as a culpable government failure. This is a nonsensical way to consider terrorist risk and only plays into the hands of the terrorists themselves. Risk can be managed and reduced but it cannot realistically be abolished and if we delude ourselves that it can we are setting ourselves up for a nasty disappointment.

These extracts and the final quote, I hope will encourage you to read the transcript of the entire speech: Jonathan Evans' terrorism speech

The United Kingdom Extradition Review

I welcome the Independent Extradition Review which in particular will put the current US-UK Extradition Treaty of 2003, the European Arrest Warrant and the more general EU Extradition arrangements under the Microscope, but will also cover Extradition Treaties with other Jurisdictions.

Starting off with the US-UK Extradition Treaty, which despite US Assertions that it fair, is probably one the most unbalanced negotiated by Britain in recent times, even the then Home Secretary David Blunkett (merely one of a long line of pretty useless Home Office Ministers) now admits he may have 'given too much to the Americans', NOT just an understatement, but 7 years late and an indication that David Blunkett should never have been Home Secretary (or indeed a Minister of the Crown in any capacity).

The trigger for putting the US-UK Treaty as a major element of the review appears to be the case of Gary McKinnon, who as far as I am concerned is one case where the Treaty has a value
(See: Extradite Gary McKinnon, no problem. But now let's fix the Extradition Treaty Posted 1st August 2009). But this Blog has been highlighting what I see as the failings of this treaty since 2006. See:

• UK-US Extradition Treaty and Certain American Politicians Support for Terrorists 13th August 2006.
• The Natwest Three 29th 29th November 2007
• The Murder of Captain Nairac - Two Suspects still Safe in the USA 23rd May 2008
  
• Extradite Gary McKinnon, no problem. But now let's fix the Extradition Treaty 01st August 2008
• The Extradite Gary McKinnon Saga Continues 28th November 2009

Moving on to the European Arrest Warrant; when this became law, I saw this in general as a good thing and conceptually I still do. But the reality has shown that it is open to being abuse and that it needs urgent reform. Part of the problem is this is an EU Law and therefore allows the Home Secretary, or their equivalent in other EU Countries, no 'wriggle room' to deal with Warrants that fall outside what is compatible with UK Law.

Whilst it is right that European Arrest Warrant is put under the Microscope, it is actually only part of a wider problem and this is the all encompassing EU Human Rights Legislation. Once again a pan-European Bill of Human rights is conceptually a good idea, but it terms and conditions are so aimed at the rights of the individual, they ignore the rights of society and indeed the rights of states to try Defendants according to their laws. See: Judge Determines Man is a Security Threat, but will NOT deport Him! This treaty does not need to be reviewed, Britain should withdraw from it immediately and replace it with a properly constructed UK Bill of Human Rights where the rights of the Individual and the rights of Society are balanced (Unfortunately my distrust of British Politicians has reached the point that I doubt they could actually construct such a bill).

The two threads of this post so far came together in the case of the extradition to the US on terror charges of radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri and three other men, which I covered in this post: How Dare the EU Block Abu Hamza US extradition on the 10th July 2010.

Even just reviewing the US-UK Extradition Treaty and the European Arrest Warrant would require considerable time, regardless of how qualified the Review Team might be. Adding in (quite rightly) other Extradition treaties and Arrangements means that the current Home Secretary's statement that this review will not report for a year is reasonable. But this statement is in itself unsatisfactory, as it doesn't address what needs to be done in the interim. My view is that the United Kingdom should suspend both the US-UK Treaty and the European Arrest Warrant and go further and withdraw Britain's acceptance of the Jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights until further notice.

With any decent Home Secretary this would actually resolve some issues with the USA as both Gary Mckinnon and Abu Hamza (and his associates) would be extradited anyway. But instead we have the permanently disappointed Theresa May (If only Dr John Reid had felt able to stay as Home Secretary, we would have at least a Home Office fit for purpose even if the current Home Secretary wasn't). Of course with the 'beloved Theresa' in charge nothing will happen!

My Sympathy is reserved for the Victims of Raoul Moat.

I have to admit to being in total agreement with Prime Minister David Cameron's Comments in Parliament:
'It is absolutely clear that Raoul Moat was a callous murderer, full stop, end of story. I cannot understand any wave, however small, of public sympathy for this man. There should be sympathy for his victims and the havoc he wreaked in that community. There should be no sympathy for him.'

My sympathies are reserved for:

1. The little girl he assaulted (who didn't get much Justice).
2. For the family of the Man he Killed,
3. His ex Girlfriend
4. Policeman he shot and Blinded
5. For the Children he fathered, because they will have grow up with stigma of his actions.

But for Raoul Moat, I will only say it is probably for the best he took his own life.

As for Facebook and the tributes to this evil Man, I think the following lifted from the BBC Comments and posted by the Elizabethan neatly sums it up:

The sympathy of those misguided few,
Who hero-worship troubled souls anew,
That quite forgot his former sentence served,
That he attacked a child is quite absurd!

Yet what be more important to this crowd,
The price of freedom that it be allowed,
That he did shoot a policeman in the head,
Be of more worth than innocent men dead.

The question I have are these sad and probably sick people who had adopted Raoul Moat as a Hero also going to express sympathy to those whose lives he destroyed? I doubt it...

Crime & Punishment UK - Getting Emotive

That 'jolly nice chap' Andrew Bridges, the Chief Inspector of Probation has issued what his probably his last report (CIoP Report 2009-2010) before he steps down next year and in the process has raised a storm of controversy.
In the foreword, entitled What Price Public Protection? - No Trite Solutions he has taken the opportunity to raise some serious, but in his own words 'emotive issues'. The media has rightly picked up on these 'emotive' issues and I suggest both The Telegraph and Mail Online articles are worth reading if only to compare the coverage.

So what are these 'emotive issues'?

• Is the public prepared to accept the 'cost' of having more prisoners managed in the community, in terms of a proportionately small amount of reoffending, in order to achieve the 'benefit' of substantial financial savings, and knowing that people are not being expensively locked up for longer than they need to be?
• Describing prison as a "rather drastic form of crime prevention", he said it was time to consider dealing with more offenders in the community. He raised the "emotionally charged topic" despite accepting that risks to the public cannot be eliminated and that prison does reduce crime.
• He even said any "individual incidents" that result should not be viewed as a failing system.

The responses from various organisations were hostile:

• David Green, director of Civitas, a think tank, said it was "not his job" for Mr Bridges, who earns £96,000 a year, to comment on policy."I would have thought the probation service is sufficiently dysfunctional for him to find enough to do without adding to its problems by calling for the release of 2,500 dangerous criminals," he said. "In the end it does not come down to costs, it comes down to justice and public protection. He has taken a narrow view of this, a shallow view."
• Lyn Costello, of the charity Mothers Against Murder and Aggression, said she was "disgusted" by the comments. "You can never bring finance in to dealing with justice," she said. "If we are going to become a country that puts money before human life or a safe and peaceful life then I do not want to live here."
• Simon Reed, vice chairman of the Police Federation, said: "What price can we put on justice? I thought part of the criminal justice system was to punish and rehabilitate. It appears to be doing neither."
• Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "It is insulting to victims of crime and law abiding taxpayers who pay for the prison system to suggest that the public should accept an increase in crime if they want savings to be made."

Taking all of this 'on board I decided to look back at my major post on the subject of
Crime, Punishment and Politics - UK (November 2006) Whilst some of the points like Border Controls and seizure of Assets have been improved, much remains relevant.

However I have decided in this post I am going to raise some 'emotive suggestions' on the cost of Prisons and Reoffending:

• Always Deport Foreign Prisoners at the end of their sentence and inform the country of origin of their arrival - whatever danger they are in being returned to their homeland, is more than balanced by the lessening of danger to citizens in this country. This to be enforced even if their home country has and routinely uses the death penalty.
• While on the subject of the Death Penalty, hold a referendum to reintroduce it into the UK for second offences such as Murder and offered as an alternative sentence to those convicted to life without parole even if their first offense
• Those granted Asylum, regardless of their offense should be stripped of their British Citizenship and departed to their country of origin as per 1) above.
• Every privilege granted to a Prisoner must be earned by Good Behaviour and all TV, Radio should be delivered via Cable with what is made available determined by the Prison Authorities
• If a prisoner causes disruption, or is found to have contraband material, then all privileges are removed and have to be re-earned
• Bring the Scottish Prison System into the English/Welsh System and distribute certain types of prisoner across the System.
• Provide mandatory Education Classes for British Prisoners with Literacy Problems and mandatory treatment for Drug and Alcohol addition
• Provide large scale and almost open prison standard half way houses in all major cities for parolees who would otherwise be homeless. Paid work to be provided for those unable to find, or be placed in a job. Further Education being offered as part of the paid work providing attendance and effort can be proven.
• Prisoners who perform Paid Work, should receive the current Minimum Wage from which is deducted 50% to defray Prison Costs,
• Reverse the Care in the Community approach to those with Mental Health Problems and as this will take a long time beginning by building (or converting existing buildings) to secure institutions and moving these people out of prison and then over a decade moving down the scale of danger to sheltered accommodation for the non-dangerous. Yes this will cost money, but these people should not be in prison, but at the same time cannot function in normal society, leading them into crime.
• No one wants a prison on their doorstep so my suggestion of the Commissioning the design of offshore prisons for non-terrorist convicts should be considered. These to be built in British Yards to a Standard Design, which provides reasonable single occupancy cell accommodation for each convict (e.g. toilet, washing facilities, piped radio and small picture TV centrally controlled - no personal radio or, TV allowed), Intensive CCTV Coverage of all communal areas used by convicts, monitored from a secure control room and able to link pictures and information to a central incident room at the Home Office. Again this will cost a lot of Money but as a long term plan should be seriously considered, especially as eventually this could release land currently used for on-shore prisons.
• Overhaul the Parole Service, so that it provides proactive monitoring and has a zero-tolerance approach to non-attendance. Also overhaul the remit of Parole Boards, on the basis that the Danger to the public is the primary and overriding consideration.

Hopefully the above will result in a storm of controversy and I look forward to comments!

How Dare the EU Block Abu Hamza US extradition

The European Court of Human Rights has ordered a halt to the extradition to the US on terror charges of radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri and three other men.

Excuse Me...Whilst I loathe the 2003 Extradition Treaty between the USA and UK because of its imbalance, this Treaty was entered into by the Elected Government of the Sovereign United Kingdom. I don't remember voting, for, or against this law being subordinate to bunch of European Judges.

Abu Hamza, jailed in the UK for soliciting to murder and racial hatred, and three other British men complained about the length of sentence they may face if convicted in the US. Their cases will be delayed for further submissions to the Strasbourg court. Meanwhile the men will remain in Custody in the UK.

Once again the 2003 Extradition Treaty is actually being used for the purpose the British thought it was supposed to serve.

The US is seeking to extradite Abu Hamza, the former head of Finsbury Park mosque in north London, since 2004, saying that he had attempted to set up a terrorism training camp in Oregon. The three other men facing extradition are Babar Ahmad, Syed Ahsan and Haroon Rashid Aswat. Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan were allegedly involved in raising funds for extremists. Mr Aswat is accused in relation to the alleged terror camp.

In all these cases the request is reasonable as these men will have their 'Day in a US Court'. But despite the fact they have not even faced trial in the USA, the EU Judges feel that these men have a reasonable argument in that:
They face a very long sentence in a "supermax" prison in Colorado and these very long sentences and the conditions of the prison, ADX Florence, would breach their human rights.

So everthing is being delayed whilst these Legal Eagles see more detailed arguments on
the prison conditions and the effect of the length of sentences. The UK government must submit further arguments to the court by 2 September about why it should be allowed to extradite the four. Sorry No - Two British courts have already approved the extraditions and that is that - The EU Court should keep out of this.

Now I might have a smidgen of sympathy if they were going to serve their sentence in Ikeja Jail, Nigeria, or were going to enjoy the pleasure of serving time in an Algerian Prison (but then again probably not).

But my real ire is that the British Government is being told what to do by a group of Judges who obviously live in a world completely Separate from the real one and more concerned with the rights of those, who given the chance would impose laws that would trample over everyone's Human Rights!

Our 'beloved' Home Secretary Theresa May said: ""We note that the European Court of Human Rights has decided that all the applications are partly admissible. We await the court's
judgement on the case. In the meantime these individuals will remain in custody."
Gosh Theresa you are a real wimp aren't you. Tell them we will extradite and that is that!

Treaties can be torn up, and it is time the EU Human Rights Treaty was!
However the 2003 Extradition Treaty also needs to be urgently renegotiated, but that has been covered several times in the blog!

Judge Determines Man is a Security Threat, but will NOT deport Him!

At a Special Immigration court Mr Justice Mitting's judgement on  the first of two Pakistani Citizens: Abid Naseer appealing against Deportation concluded:
"We are satisfied that Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative who posed and still poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom," and added "Subject to the issue of safety on return, it is conducive to the public good that he should be deported."

Abid Naseer

So there we are this man is deemed a Danger to the Citizens of the United Kingdom and therefore should be deported immediately. But NO, the Judge then determined that it was impossible to return the men ( the second man being: Ahmad Faraz Khan)  to Pakistan - Actually it's very easy, police officers escort them to the Airport and travel with them on a Plane and then hand them over to the Authorities. But of course the safety of Abid Nasser and Ahmad Faraz Khan is much more important than the safety of United Kingdom Citizens as the Judge decided that "There is a long and well-documented history of disappearances, illegal detention and of the torture and ill-treatment of those detained, usually to produce information, a confession or compliance" - by the Pakistani Authorities. Which is interesting as three other Pakistani Citizens Arrested with Abid Naseer and Ahmad Faraz Khan have returned to Pakistan of their own free will!

Ahmad Faraz Khan

Of course the new Home Secretary will be appealing against this decision? NO she is NOT; instead she said she was 'disappointed'.
Well Theresa May I am disappointed in you as already you have failed in your duty to protect Public Safety by not even trying to get this ruling  reversed, NOT a good start!

For more details see:
BBC: - 'Al-Qaeda ringleader' wins appeal against deportation
Guardian:  - Pakistani students arrested in anti-terror raids can stay in UK
Telegraph: - Pakistani students arrested in terror raids win deportation battle

Biometric Passports & ID Cards are Necessary

The new UK Coalition Government is determined to scrap both the New Generation of Biometric Passports and ID Cards and therefore the National Identity Register.

Whilst this is not news, I had hoped once the new Government was in power there would be a realisation that whilst the Labour Government's handling of the planning and initial implementation was 'poor' to say the least, these projects were beginning to progress towards being not only a much needed addition to our Border and Internal Security, but also would have the potential to be useful across all Government Departments and even, in the case of ID Cards have the potential to be useful to citizens in everyday life both as a way of proving identity and when , as is inevitable dealing with Government both Local and National.

But of course getting rid of them is going to be simple as both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were against them and therefore getting them cancelled will be easily passed by Parliament.

Of course wasting all the public money already spent on a £5.4 Billion project is not going to even cause them a smidgen of concern.

But hey, let's not let National Security, or the other benefits of this project get in
the way of populist politics.

Guido Fawkes an Article: Mad Mullah Gets More Than Frontline Soldier

Whilst the Guido Fawkes Blog is largely read by Politicians, Lawyers and City Movers & Shakers, (not always with enjoyment - Hazel Blears in a speech described it as the vicious nihilism of Guido Fawkes), some of his articles should receive a wider audience. The following is an entire post made on the 6th January 2010:

Start Guido Fawkes Post:

Mad Mullah Gets More Than Frontline Soldier

Here is another evidence-based chart you won’t see elsewhere; it shows how much taxpayers are forced to give to Anjem Choudary – the extremist cleric who wants to lead a protest march through Wootton Bassett.  He claims £25,740 in benefits to subsidise his hate preaching.  Guido questions how he can be seeking work when he spends all his time rabble rousing in broadcast studios and on demonstrations.  In contrast a frontline soldier, fighting Choudary’s taliban allies in Afghanistan, takes home £17,004 for risking his life.  If that private is killed in combat, his widow and children would have to live on a pension less than Choudary gets.

Why are British taxpayers paying their enemies more than their soldiers?  Is Choudary really actively seeking work?  The evidence suggests he has other priorities – so stop his benefits…

END of Guido Fawkes Post

The Extradite Gary McKinnon Saga Continues

My views on the Gary McKinnon Case and the Extradition Treaty were detailed on the 01st August 2009 in this post.
Extradite Gary McKinnon, no problem. But now let's fix the Extradition Treaty
Even the Home Secretary after reversing his decision to not to review the case (U-Turns being one of the few things British Ministers seem good at), has found that there are NO valid reasons to stop the extradition.

As a reminder on what this is all about:
Gary McKinnon hacked into 97 Computers belonging to:
United States Defense Department, US Navy, US Army, US Air Force, and NASA in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks. In the process of causing (by latest figures) $700,000USD of Damage, and stole 1,000 passwords from high-security computer networks.

He has admitted he did indeed commit these crimes, but only because he was looking for information on U.F.O.’s. Hmm, if this was indeed his only agenda, why did he leave the following message on one of the Pentagon computers he hacked:
“U.S. foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism. I will continue to disrupt at the highest possible level.”

The Lawyers acting for the US in the Extradition Case have described Mr McKinnon as:
The most prolific and damaging computer hacker in the history of the United States military.
Well I would change the wording to:
The most prolific and damaging, non-state supported computer hacker in the history of the United States military, that has been caught so far.
But then these are only Lawyers and what do they know about Cyber-Espionage being carried out against all Western Countries Military and Industry.
But despite this caveat, the crimes committed mean Gary McKinnon was carrying out acts of Cyber-Terrorism against the USA.

But hold on, a Professor watching a Television Interview  being given by McKinnon after extradition proceedings had started, began to suspect that he was suffering from Asperger syndrome, and subsequently he was indeed diagnosed as a sufferer of this disorder in August 2008 (three years into the Extradition proceedings). Asperger Syndrome is viewed as being within the Autism Spectrum of Disorders and is the cause of much discussion amongst researchers and indeed sufferers whether it is a difference (i.e within the spectrum of normal behaviour), rather than a disability that must be treated or cured.

As covered in my earlier post, Gary McKinnon does seem to fit some of the Asperger Profile, but surely this should have been diagnosed in Childhood when the symptoms are more pronounced rather than in his early 40's. Also within Asperger, like any of the disorders within the Autism Spectrum, there are huge variations between individuals.
If Asperger's is a valid defence, then there is no reason why this would not be considered as valid in a US Court as in a UK one?
Alternatively now that it is known that in Gary McKinnon case Asperger's is so serious that his obsessive behaviour meant that he went out and attacked the systems of a British Ally, then why hasn't he been sectioned under the Mental Health Acts and currently in a secure facility and (as there is nor real treatment) confined there for the rest of his life?

A lot of People from the British Autism Society to a bunch of Cross-party MP's and 'Celebrities' have jumped on the Save Gary McKinnon bandwagon. At least in the case of the British Autism Society, I have some sympathy with their stance as for the rest, well..

The only Person for whom I have both sympathy and respect in this case is Gary McKinnon's Mother, Janis Sharp who has mounted one of the most impressive campaigns in support of her son that I have ever known. Having said that, I believe her campaign should fail and that Gary McKinnon's case be heard in an American Court on the eight counts of computer fraud, that the extradition request is connected with.

But this does NOT in any way change my views on the 2003 Extradition Treaty. It is one of a small number of issues where I agree with Shami Chakrabarti (I respect and admire the Lady, just don't often agree with her) that this Extradition Law is in need of urgent reform. I would go further, in the next parliament the Treaty should be revoked and whilst renegotiated replaced by Extradition on a case by case basis.
See:UK-US Extradition Treaty and Certain American Politicians Support for Terrorists Posted on 13th August 2006 .
After all one of the reasons it is so imbalanced is the concern that members of the IRA living in the US would not be given a fair trail if extradited to Britain and one of the concerns of the British Supporters of Gary Mckinnon is that he won't get a fair trial in the USA, I trust US Justice the same as I trust British Justice, I view both with considerable reservations, but they both attempt to give defendants a fair trial - My Objection to the NatWest Three being extradited, was their case clearly fell within British Jurisdiction and due the intense anger over Enron, there was a possibility of trial bias. But the reason that I support Gary McKinnon's Extradition is treaty, or not, this case falls within US Jurisdiction and there is NOT the same US Domestic angst.

Extradite Gary McKinnon, no problem. But now let's fix the Extradition Treaty

The Idle Man has followed the Gary McKinnon Hacker Case with some interest, but with little sympathy for Mr McKinnon. After all he is not being accused of some minor misdemeanour, but of hacking into the computer systems of the United States Army, Navy and Air Force, plus the United States Department of Defence and NASA, as well as sabotaging vital American military systems after the terror attacks of September 11 2001. In addition McKinnon is alleged to have caused Criminal Damage by his actions, which have been calculated to total $750,000 USD for remedial action and repair. Any Government would, based on these allegations go to any lengths for extradition and subsequent prosecution.

In the UK a large number of high profile people and much of the media are stating that the current extradition treaty should NOT apply in this case as it was designed to counter terrorism. From the viewpoint of any Government, the allegations against Gary McKinnon are effectively charges of Terrorism, although prefixed with cyber. But make no mistake Cyber Terrorism may not have the instant, spectacular media impact of a Bomb Attack but if it is successful, it can easily be just as dangerous to society.

Apparently Mr McKinnon has been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome which even the medical profession cannot spell consistently and whilst McKinnon appears to in part fit the Asperger profile, in other areas it appears from the background to the case he does not (social interaction does not appear to have been impaired and he has even been part of the Hackers Panel at InfoSecurity Europe). What makes Asperger syndrome even more interesting is that there is now discussion as to whether this is a disability that must be treated, or a just a 'difference' that falls with the spectrum of normal Human behaviour. So using the Asperger defence always seemed more than a little disingenuous.

So as far as I am concerned the McKinnon Allegations do fall within the original purpose and spirit of the Extradition Treaty and whilst my view counts for nothing, it has been supported in Law up to and including the Law Lords and the European Court of Human Rights, which have rejected his appeal against extradition.

What I find ironic is that this fast-track Treaty has occupied the Legal Profession for three years! When for once it was actually being used for the purpose for which, at least the British thought it was designed. Of course because of the implicit imbalance to the treaty, if an American Hacker had done the same to the MoD, MI5, or SIS Systems, Britain would NOT under the treaty have able to extradite them.

Now the obstacles to Gary McKinnon being extradited, there will be a jury trial under the American Justice System. So Gary McKinnon will have his 'day in court'(although I suspect this will actually be weeks in Court). There are four possible outcomes:

1. He will be found guilty of all charges and if this is the case a very long sentence is appropriate.
2. He will be found guilty of some of the charges and if is the case the sentence should appropriate to those he is found guilty of.
3. His Lawyers will successfully use the Asperger defence, but hopefully this will still mean he will be institutionalised for a period for assessment to ensure he is not going to repeat his actions.
4. He is found not guilty of all charges - Extremely Unlikely!
   

Whilst I have every sympathy with McKinnon's Mother attempts to stop her son being extradited (and indeed have much more sympathy for her tireless efforts than I have for her Son), I find it embarrassing and distasteful that 40 British Members of Parliament have, after the Legal Processes have been exhausted have jumped on the McKinnon bandwagon by writing to the US President. Their protest is NOT about whether after a Trial he is found guilty and the punishment is too harsh, but the fact that he should NOT stand trial at all. If these allegations are true and this man attacked an ally and compromised their national security then it is only right that the USA should have the right to try him for these Crimes. True he is being extradited under a flawed and imbalanced treaty, but these MPs efforts would be better served by NOT using the case for self-serving publicity, but working hard to get the provisions of the Treaty fixed, so that there is no imbalance and it limited to the purposes that the British Government believed it would be applied! In the case of McKinnon, the treaty (flawed though it is) has been correctly applied.

The Idle Man, is as so often the case, is apparently out of step with Media and Political Opinion (what the general public thinks, matters not one jot - After all the e-Petition to the Prime Minister to stop the extradition, only managed to obtain 876 Signatures before it closed, not exactly an outpouring of support). So be it, but I consider what Gary McKinnon is alleged to have done, constitutes extremely serious crimes against an ally of this country and he should stand trial for those crimes in the country against which he launched his attacks, But that does not in any way alter my view that the current extradition treaty should be suspended until the provisions of the treaty between UK and USA apply equally to both Countries. This should not stop the Gary McKinnon Extradition because the Legal Processes were finally taken to the European Court of Human Rights and the extradition was upheld (quite rightly).

In the interests of Balance here are three of External Websites that show support for Gary McKinnon's attempts to avoid Extradition and Trial in the USA:
Free Gary McKinnon - or at least give him a fair trial in the United Kingdom - Blog
Daily Mail Articles in Support of Gary McKinnon
London TV Net

About that Extradition Treaty:
Posts in this Blog:
UK-US Extradition Treaty and Certain American Politicians Support for Terrorists - 13th August 2003
The NatWest Three - 29th November 2007

External Sites:
Extradition Act of 2003 - The UK Statute Law Database
The Extradition Act 2003 - Wikipedia Entry
StateWatch News Online – Special Report on the ‘New US_UK Extradition Treaty - 2003
MPs Impotently Huffing and Puffing in Parliament - Hansard via They Work for You - 15th July 2009

News Update:
Alan Johnson: I can’t stop extradition - Times Online 2nd August 2009:
In this article the Home Secretary states he cannot stop the extradition as he would be breaking the Law. However once again Gary McKinnon is described as young (he is 43, which means he should be described as of middle age), Vulnerable (so vulnerable he can sit on the InfoSecurity Hackers panel and give a number of media interviews) and Misguided (He certainly is, he got so overconfident whilst hacking into US Defence Computers and those of NASA that he misguidedly got careless and therefore got caught).

I would rather the Home Secretary concentrated on making his Department 'fit for purpose' and ensuring that illegals are deported, dangerous prisoners stay in jail and sorting out the totally mismanaged National ID Card Scheme, than writing articles for the Sunday Times.