Puppet Show Protests

The protests went as anticipated. The majority of people, many of whom will be redundant in 4 days, marched calmly through London surrounded by Union Officials, Police Officers and press.

The BBC has been quite good at maintaining the "majority were peaceful" line.

However, inevitably, the [violence] [anarchistic] {scuffles] [turmoil] or [tempest] as various journalists have referred to the less peaceful marches, have stolen many headlines.

I watched with discerning horror as various shots on BBC News depicted fights, broken windows, paint bombs, fireworks and other antisocial ranging through to criminal behaviour took place.

The Hype

Aggrandized social networking had set the scene for a modern Punch and Judy, it was just ascertaining who would appropriate which role.

In the previous protests, students have been quick to cry foul over Police Brutality, accuse and actively engage violent behaviour.

Yet yesterday there was very litte evidence of Judy with her rolling pin. No police had riot shields, no weapons, and their regimentary lines to calm rampant protestors were standard calming proceedure.

In direct contrast, Punch had armed himself with a selection of premeditated weapons. Rather than the spade seen in student protests in September (who carries a spade with them on the off chance?!), protestors, menacing in black with balaclavas, were armed with lightbulbs full of amonia, spray cans, and anything else they saw fit to collect on their way.

With the twitterverse pounding with hashtags like #march26 #tarhirsq #trafalgursq #ukuncut #march26march et al, the drums were beating for drama.

And twas ever thus

While Milliband egotistically compared himself to Martin Luther King (there's a whole other blog post in this!), the BBC cameras panned to the menacing thugs attacking Topshop and swifting moving to Fortnum and Mason.

With bits of fence going through windows of banks, police officers being set on fire, the trite anarchy symbol being sprayed every where and continous soundbites from Labour, I was watching at home, glad I didnt attend.

Much criticism was put about Laurie Penny, the Independent writer, who felt the need to castigate the police and continue to encourage illegal and demonstrative violence through social media channels. A badly written (oh the irony) puts is quite well;

"For too long now she has been allowed to spread her vile and one side biased views of the protest and the whole events around them...[to satisfy] her own feeling of self importance"

But even without poisonous journalists encouraging violence to their own gains, the collective attacks on buildings which, to protestors, symbolised the extremeties of social divide were escalating.

Risks of Anonimoty

Good old UK Uncut, whom I think of as a modern day, twitter charged Robin Hood gang, have taken great risks by maintaining an air of mysteriousness.

While they decided to occupy Fortnum and Mason, who are charged with legal but ammoral tax avoidance by the young gangs, others descended on the store outside.

There is still dispute as to whether these youths, carrying Anarchy flags and wearing balaclavas, were in fact members of #UKUncut or not.

They adorned the outside of the building with UK Uncut slogans, claimed to be part of the (and I am loathe to call them but) movement, threw fireworks and flares at the police and actively prevented police from stopping other protestors from joining in, no doubt contributing to those injured, police and protestors alike.

I commented that I went to make a cup of tea and when I returned, UK Uncut had lost all of their credibility. Others have stated that it was not UK Uncut outside.

But that is the risk the UK Uncut take with their anonymity.

If they are serious about challenging society's norms and social divide, hiding behind badly written yet powerful articles simply gives others the opportunity to discredit them.

However, if the gang of trouble makers were not legitimate representatives of UK Uncut, then comments like this do not help to dispell the myth;

"Civil disobedience has a long tradition of driving forward progressive change and we are here to send a powerful message"

Disobedience is an interesting word.

–noun
"lack of obedience or refusal to comply; disregard or transgression"

There is something of an irony in this.

UK Uncut are demanding that the Government comply with them by changing tax legislation to more fairly redistribute wealth around the country.

To apply this lobby, they are the epitome of civil obedience, calming registering protests with the police, quietly occupying and proclaiming allegiance with Che Guevara and Ghandi. Neither of whom were demonstrative violent protestors.

Further illogical interpretation then, and I will refrain from comments on education necessary to enter university.

So if UK Uncut proclaim necessary civil disobedience, and deny active violence, how can one know what they stand for or who they are?

Trafalgur Square

Representative of political and social freedom, Trafalgar Square was the coda of the day, filled with what some referred to as a party.

Some party if it resulted in kettling.

Further damage and devestation was had, as young people failed yet again to get their message accross.

And the point of it all

Well, the meaning behind the violence is somehow lost in translation.

Protesting against cuts was the aim in the TUC march. This was a peaceful demonstration even if the leader of the Labour party felt he was a hero.

But what exactly was the aim in the UK Uncut and associated violences?

Rather like Punch and Judy, it seems it was just a sensationalised and futile exercise in entertainment.

Electronic Tags

I thought I would have a look this morning and see what the statistics there are on interferrence with electronic tags placed on prisoners and refugees.

This is the first google search result:

The Kangeroo Court of Tory and Media Influence

The decision to reduce Munir Hussain's sentence for GBH is indicative of a regression in politics and law and a worrying announcement.

The BBC has provided shoddy reporting on this;

[the family] were tied up but the businessman escaped and enlisted his brother to help chase the offenders down the street, bringing one of them to the ground.

Let's be a bit more specific please.

The Businessman telephoned his brother which is the equivilant of planning an offence. Forethought means he cannot have acted in the heat of the moment therefore provocation is not a defence.

Forethought and equates to Mens Rea of the crime, therefore he intended to commit the crime.

Enlisting his brother made this a joint enterprise and they are equally liable for the commission of the offence.

Chasing the offender down, in a car.

The BBC does go on to say;

The pair left Salem with a permanent brain injury after hitting him with a cricket bat.

The force of the blow was so hard that it broke the bat into three pieces.

Now, as I blogged previously, this is Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent. Also known as the most serious offence against the person short of attempted murder.

Sentencing guidelines for GBH with Intent recommend a minimum of 3 years.

Therefore 2 years was a reasonable mitigation of an offence which could be considered excessive force in self defence.

However, I would argue that it was a premeditated offence, noted above, with a weapon, and this would usually acquire a 5 year custodial sentence.

If you had avoided a charge of attempted murder, and received a sentence far below the usual guidelines for that offence, you should keep your mouth shut and get out in a year for good behaviour.

The Court of Appeal did attempt to inform us that they were not bending to public or Conservative opinion.

Lord Judge said: "This trial had nothing to do with the right of the householder to defend themselves or their families or their homes.

"The burglary was over and the burglars had gone. No one was in any further danger from them."

So, if the burglary was over, this would imply it is not excessive self defence, and is in fact a joint enterprise of premeditated wounding with intent?

If we do not have a justice system that upholds the law as it stands, and bends to public opinion, we may as well have a court of public shouting aye or nay and remove all of Hansard immediately.

Section 18 with Intent

3/9/09

You can hardly avoid the news today with the two boys who have pleaded guilty to the lesser charge above as well as numerous other offences rather than attempted murder.

The "Jamie Bulger" case of this generation, hopefully it will provoke much needed changes to law for children and young people in the United Kingdom.

If the two boys were found or plead guilty to attempted murder, they would have carried that offence on their record for the rest of their lives. Unfortunantly, as the CPS has reduced the charge, once they reach 16 their criminal records will be wiped clean and inaccessible.

The idea in this legilsation was to allow rehabilitation and clean slate mentality to allow young offenders to reform. The reality is that the legislation is allowed to be abused, with children committing numerous serious offences, sometimes in the hundreds, then being treated as first time offenders when they are caught as late teens. The cycle perpetuates and the offenders get a less severe treatment and continue in a course of violence.

This clearly needs to be reviewed.

The case also raises serious questions about social care. One of the hot topics of the year, with numerous child abuse cases in the news, the issue of children's homes and foster care is one rarely addressed. The concept that it is better for a child to remain with his or her natural parents is the preferred approach, the result being that when they leave this and enter the LAC system, they often have pavlovian behviour that is very hard to break.

Theorectically community, LAC and foster care should be as good an environment as a a happy stable family. There is certainly the potential for it to be as good if not a better initiative than the nuclear family concept. However, there is a preconception of children in care or from a care background are "damaged" and less able and generally destined to have little ambition or social development.

This preconception needs to be challenged and the forms of care we provide need to be reformed to prevent further disenfranchised generations with mentall health disorders and low level crime to continue.

1,000,000 Children with Criminal Convictions

27/8/09

Nick Clegg commented today that 1,000,000 children undeer the labour government have criminal convictions.

Discussion on the post range from aggressive deterence mindsets to challenge offending rates to the injustice of prosecuting children.

While we can accuse Labour of nurturing a disenfranchised generation, it is important to note that these figures MAY reflect higher policing success or a detrimental society of maladpative families.

On Asbos

50% of ASBOs given to young persons (below 25) are breached within 3 years

The majority of ASBOs issued are given to men aged between 42 and 65, generally for neighbourhood dispute (University of Kent Criminology PhD Research).

Finally getting an ASBO is not being convicted of a criminal offence It is the equivilent of a
penalty fine.

Therefore the report that 1ml children have been convicted is children that have gone thru the youth court system. Perhaps it also identifies a police force catching youth criminals. Or perhaps it represents a society that is lacking respect and conditioning, morality and civilised behaviour.


On Punishment

Conviction of child criminals results in poorer sanction which does not act as a deterent, due to the changes to the Children and Young Persons Act, following the introduction of the Youth Justice system.
Rehabilitation in Youth Institutions is one of the most productive systems for reforming social malaise in young people BUT ... Read moreLabour decided the funding wasn't worth it (although it had a 4% reoffence rate as opposed to normal youth institutions 95% reoffence rate).

Some youths are prosecuted 15 times before they face custodial sentence.

Further to this, because of afore mentioned Act, as soon as a child criminal turns 16 their record is abolished, intending to give them a clean start but IN FACT allowing them to build up further indictable offences with lower sanctions for first offences.

On the injustice of prosecuting children

The law defines a child as below the age of 10 years. These cannot be prosecuted. The two boys who stabbed Damiola Taylor had 169 offences between them.

The law IS lenient on children/youth offenders - this is why the Jamie Bulger Killers were released in 2004 and given new identities after abducting, sexually abusing and murdering a three year old. These cases and a million others identify why we need stringer sanctions against "children" and their parents.

Ronnie Biggs

I am fed up with certain comments on the subject, reiterated by Any Questions today on Radio 4.

Firstly:
Ronnie Biggs took part in a train robbery. He was the getaway driver. This does not negate his offence. The law on assisting offenders states "Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an indictable offence shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as the principle offender" He aided and abeted, knew people were being stolen from, knew people were being hurt and still continued. He is to be punished as a full participant of the act. One trapeze artist is no less important because they only catch the other, not do the flip themselves.

Secondly:
He has not served 30 years of his sentence. He escaped and spent 25 years in luxury. He has served 18 months of a life sentence. He has not payed his dues.

I will say as he is dying, it was right to release him. But not because he is dying. It is well known that medical care in the Criminal Justice System is well below the standard of the NHS. This is a human right as far as I am concerned, entitlement to medical care with no discrimination. So yes, releasing him to the care of a hospital was right in the circumstances, BUT we need better services in Prisons and the Government should use this opportunity to read the miles of research into poor quality offender care and rectify it so they are not forced by public opinion to release people serving sentences due.

Before we can condone holding information of innocent people, we must review the systems

While MP expenses are stealing the headlines with "cheque book journalism", I think the leak is potentially a well positioned distraction from the concepts of DNA Databases and ID Cards.

I happen to be a supporter of DNA databases and ID Cards. But I do not advocate them in a country where the Police Service are maintained by target meeting. If we provide the police with a DNA database of every citizen, you can gurrantee that the hierarchy of the Police will feel the pressure to induce more and more use of the system in order to gain funding each year.

But a system that provides a deterrent in both evidence collection and in punishment is of practical use for a democracy.

The other conditions ought to be that DNA evidence is maintained correctly in the chain of command before being submitted, that correct PACE proceedures are met and that DNA evidence is NOT the sole evidence on which to base a prosecution case. Any more than a single witness or character evidence should be.

But the police and the CPS are without morals when faced with the options of hitting targets and getting good press or not hitting targets.

The same applies to the Local Authorities and NHS. Public services should be based on quality and fairness, not revenue and quantative data. This is one Thatcher Legacy I cannot support.

Football and Fanaticism

I'm not a football fan but no one could avoid this story yesterday.

What caught my attention was the number of media quotes demanding "more security" for referees. Referees should not need more security. As far as I am aware, death threats are a criminal offence and it is down to the public protection service to investigate.

We are in a recession. Recession breeds boredom, violence, and football hooliganism. For all the factors in Hillsborough, I sincerely doubt it would have occurred in a profligate period of time.

Other countries with poor economic climates provide a similar example, such as the levels of "Organised Hooliganism" seen in Poland with strong ties to Neo Nazi and fascist organisations.

Just as the middle class become more right wing in an economic downturn, so the working classes embrace aggression and fascist regime. Without wanting to digress into a sociological lateral analysis aggregating the negative impacts of a lack of money in society, I can sadly say that this will not be the last outburst in Football, nor the last BNP member to be voted in, nor the last ludicrous resolution plan to appease one person instead of maintaining risk.

I will, however, make the point that in every economic slump, governments slash public spending to within an inch of it's life. The result is a widening gap between the rich and the poor, resentment in the unemployed and welfare state and further inducement of aggression towards the welfare state. If the government had the sense to invest heavily in public spending, regulate and manage society so less people were deprived, more people were compensated during financial instability then this would temper aggression, right wing temperaments and illogical justifications for lack of development. Look at the Scandinavian States for example.

To surmise, football hooliganism is the problem, as a result of the economy. Not the levels of security Chelsea may or may not provide for their referees.

Causing Anguish and Distress in Pursuit of Crime

Torture, excrutiate, anguish, distress and make suffer

Without wishing to subscribe to Daily Mail syndrome, what is the world coming to?

Perhaps there is something in media violence perpetuating violence in the real world?

Or are we just seeing a paticular surge in the minority cases in the press at the moment?

Perhaps the time has come where people favour notoriety so much that murder is possible. After all, Big Brother is flagging.

Lateral Applications of the Law (part two)

In one day we have seen a shift in common law that could bear dramatic implications on criminal law in this country.

The conviction of a paedophile without identifying the victim could negate the rights of victims.

If you can prosecute a man for rape when there is no identifiable victim, can you prosecute anyone without a victim? If two blokes have a drunken scuffle and get caught on cctv can they both be prosecuted without the other's consent for abh?

What about the implications of consent? If someone films a "rape fantasy" with his girlfriend and it is seized by police, can they prosecute him for rape?
[I know consent is a tentative issue with the new Criminal Justice Act and redefinitions of pornogrphy but this goes further]

How about if the victim comes forward? There cannot be a retrial. She can never get recompnse.

to make all crimes victimless is a frightening prospect,trial by jury requires both sides of the story, not some clever barristers and a confession.

[This is a bit left wing for me, but i believe in the maintenance of justice, and there is the potential here for justice to lose the basis of it's creation]

Big Brother Bites Back

The G20 Meltdown has become a beacon of light in dealing with brutal police powers.

But the reporting on mainstream channels has already become subject to being dumbed down. The BBC report "alleged attacks". Even if the police are found to have acted with reasonable force, this does not negate the fact that it was an assault. It would just be a justified assault instead of a criminal assault. But there is obvious journalistic disquiet at projecting such inferences, after all, it is not like there is video evidence. Oh, wait.

While it is all very well to say "The public has a right to be able to identify any uniformed officer whilst performing their duty.", I would suspect that the woman struck round the face had other things on her mind than memorising the 4, 5 or 6 digit number on the Officer's shoulder.

As a number of radio stations have commented, the police are now fully aware they are under far more scrutiny than ever before, with the advent of photographic and internet technology. This is a delightful form of "Big Brother" style vigilance biting back, and I commend it all the way.

Idle hands leads to lots of ranting.

What a surprise. The BBC fails to address core issues again

"POA national chairman Colin Moses added: "We have been warning of this type of disturbance for many months, but no one wants to listen."

There is little concern for prisoners in this country, we have too many right wing opinions and too few experiences of true rehabilitation to recognise it's worth. It has been widely reported for years that the prison population is rising. (How much of this is due to extent of criminalisation this government perpetuates?).

"He said a lack of investment had led to fewer specialist staff and a failure to address the issue could lead to HMP Ashwell becoming the "first of many disturbances of 2009".

The BBC fails to address the core issue, that the reclassification of prisoners has led to people going into cat C prisons only 1 year to 18 months into a mandatory offense. Yet they then go on to say:

"However, a Prison Service (PS) spokeswoman insisted it was "simply untrue" Ashwell was either holding Category B prisoners or overcrowded."

There is NOTHING in the article prior to this about the categories of prisoners. Yet they seem to assume this is a forgone conclusion of their staccato sentences and IMPACT statements.

"there is not overcrowding"

Bollocks. In short. The population is currently 83,058. This increased by a third in a decade. The lists of publications on penal reform nd overcrowding are limitless on the Internet. It is a well publicised and documented fact we have more prisoners than any other country in Europe, not to mention re offence rates etc etc.

(as a little digression, the prison population costs our government £3,156,204 a year at an average of £38,000 per prisoner. This is more than £10K more than the average wage of the British person. What evidence is there to suggest this is a good investment?)

and assures me that there are not any Category B prisoners, they are all Category C," she said.

To discuss in more detail, this was not the point POA national chairman Colin Moses was making. His point was the excessive bureaucracy of the prison service (as with all civil services) has been used to demote categories of prisoners whom, five years ago, would have been cat B prisoners. This is therefore changing the nature of the inmates in the prisons as they are now interacting with those who have committed more severe offences.

There is also a failure to analyse or research this situation at all. Better not to scare people huh? Let them go on with their Easter weekends and ignore the fact that at least a third, and potentially 70-80% of people in prison are serious drug users and serious offenders. That the Penal System fails to separate people with severe drug problems, mental health or psychotic problems, much less treat them effectively. We are spending £38k a person a year to give them a free b&b, introduce them to more contacts and then pat them on the back and give them a council house.

What we are seeing is the potential for the development of a much nastier and organised gang culture in British Prisons unless SOMETHING is done. And that something is not giving prisoners the vote.

People need to wise up to the fact prisoners are human beings, that the American way of locking them up and throwing away the key is not the way forward. Behaviour is a learned response. We need more investment in rehabilitation and teaching.

Invasive or ridiculous?

While the highway code and PACE continue to grow to catch the mediocre and banal and turn it into crime, they have now introduced further pilots to catch drivers unaware.

I am really really amused by this.

Anyone seen driving while distracted - eating at the wheel, playing with the radio or applying make-up for instance - is filmed by the cameras.

Do they think drivers are so distracted as to not notice a a 12ft (3.6m) mast with a camera attached?

When they criminalise picking your nose while driving, something I see more frequently than anything else, I might get a bit pissy. But for now I am just going to laugh.