When Straw did show mercy to an old and frail man
Posted by Andrew Adams on July 3, 2009
Filed Under Crime, Human rights, New Labour | Leave a Comment
I can’t say I have any strong views on whether Ronnie Biggs should be released from prison. Yes it may seem harsh to refuse him parole given the parlous state of his health, but he refuses to show any remorse for his crime, a normal condition for parole, and if he had stayed and served his time to start with instead of doing a runner to Brazil he would be free by now anyway.
So one can understand to an extent why Jack Straw was not inclined to be lenient towards an old man with failing health. However, as Duncan Campbell points out in today’s Guardian, he hasn’t always been so unsympathetic
A frail old man, barely able to communicate, guilty of a crime committed many decades earlier, but unrepentant about his past, wants only to be released so that he can spend his final days with his family. Some people object, saying that the nature of the crime is such that the old man deserves to die in custody. Enter Jack Straw, the member of the government who must make the onerous decision on the old man’s future. He realises that the old man is barely able to walk and is in a confused state of mind. He allows him to return home.
The old man was General Pinochet. In 2000, the then home secretary Jack Straw declined requests from Spain for Pinochet to stand trial for gross human rights violations and sent him back to Chile. Pinochet was responsible for the deaths of 3,000 people, the torture of many thousands more, the removal of a democratically elected president and the looting of the national coffers. Straw still felt that mercy was appropriate.
Standing in the way of control orders
Posted by Andrew Adams on June 11, 2009
Filed Under Civil liberties, New Labour, Politics | Leave a Comment
Of the various illiberal and authoritarian measures introduced by Labour in the last few years one of the most pernicious is the use of control orders against people who are suspected of terrorist activity. People subjected to control orders are effectively under house arrest - they have a curfew of up to 16 hours a day and there are strict restrictions on where they can go and who they can meet, access to telephones and the internet is strictly limited, any vistors have to be notified to the authorities and approved in advanced. Worst of all, control orders are imposed in a way which breaches two of the most fundamental principles of justice - that people suspected of criminal activity should not be subjected to punishment without a fair trial and that they should be allowed to see and contest the evidence against them. They do have legal representation from”special advocates” but although the advocates are allowed to see the supposed evidence against their client they are not allowed to discuss it with them to establish grounds to challenge it.
The government claims that control orders are an essential element of the fight against terrorism, but it is hard to judge how true this is when we do not know what the people concerned are accused of or the evidence against them, and we are entitled to be skeptical when we hear of cases such as this, as described in an excellent article by Gareth Pierce (I would recommend anyone to read the whole piece)
On trial just before Christmas was a young Essex Muslim, Ceri Bullivant, who had been placed under a Control Order and then charged with a criminal offence when he absconded, unable to cope with the restrictions of that order. In his case the jury magnificently acquitted him on the basis that he had a reasonable excuse to breach his order. It was only later, however, in the High Court, that what lay behind the secrecy became suddenly clearer. Mr Justice Collins quashed the order itself; before he did so, an Intelligence agent giving evidence from behind a screen admitted that the tip-off which had led to the decision that Bullivant was a risk to national security and ‘associated with links to terrorists’ had come from a friend of Ceri’s mother who, after drinking heavily, had phoned Scotland Yard, which failed ever to contact the caller to ask for further explanation.
That is why we should welcome yesterdays ruling by the law lords that the use of secret evidence was a breach of the right to a fair trial under section six of the ECHR. One of the law lords, Lord Hope of Craighead summed it up perfectly -
If the rule of law is to mean anything, it is in cases such as these that the case must stand by principle. It must insist that the person affected be told what is alleged against him.
This doesn’t mean the end of control orders but if the government is now forced to release evidence which it would have previously been able to keep secret then hopefully this will be the first step to them finding a way to use such evidence, assuming it is sufficient to make a decent case, in a proper criminal trial so those people subject to control orders can have their rightful day in court. And if it is not sufficient, well it’s a pretty basic principle that in a liberal democracy if you don’t have enough evidence to convict someone of a crime thay have to be released.
The government is predictably bleating about the outcome and resorting to scare tactics
the new home secretary, Alan Johnson, called it “an extremely disappointing judgment” and said it would make it much harder to protect the public.
This of course the same Alan Johnson who many of us were talking up as our preferred successor to Gordon Brown. Well as a member of the public all I can say is that yes, I expect the government to try to protect me but I also accept that it can be very difficult, that they won’t always be successful and that there should be limits to the methods they can use.
So long Vic Mackey
Posted by Andrew Adams on May 21, 2009
Filed Under Culture, Media, TV | 1 Comment
So it’s over - the last ever episode of The Shield was aired on Monday night. It was one of the greatest TV cops shows ever, possibly the greatest,* and in corrupt detective Vic Mackey, portrayed superbly by Michael Chiklis, it had one of the most compelling central characters in the history of the genre.
The ending was handled well - there was no final blaze of glory for Mackey, no explosive climax. He managed to foil the best efforts of his adversaries to prosecute him for his various misdeeds, but he still ended up paying a big price for his sins. Vic’s family were moved into witness protection to escape from him after his wife turned on and him tried to help the police bring him down. Ronnie Garocki, his fellow strike team member and his closest friend was hauled away by their former police colleagues to pay the price for their various misdeeds over the years, sold out by Vic himself. And the ultimate humiliation - after getting the job with the Feds he had been so desperate for he was relegated to a mundane desk job, faced with three years of pushing paper instead of being out on the streets busting the bad guys. The sight of Vic, dressed in regulation suit and tie, being lectured by the HR lady on the workings of the air conditioning system was a superb portrait of a proud man humiliated by the banality of his situation. Read more
Illiterate headline of the year
Posted by Andrew Adams on April 30, 2009
Filed Under Media, The Sun | 2 Comments
OK, I know it’s the Sun and you expect headlines to be written in tabloidese, and you expect the misuse of the pronoun “one” in any story about the royal family. But although I haven’t read the story in detail I’m pretty certain that they didn’t mean to suggest that someone shagged the Queen in the grounds of Windsor castle.
Mel says “Yes 2 ID”
Posted by Andrew Adams on April 30, 2009
Filed Under Melanie Phillips, Religion, Science | Leave a Comment
Those of us who are familiar with the views of Melanie Phillips are aware that she is nothing if not a champion of unpopular causes, and can only admire her persistence in continuing to fight her corner even when all of the available evidence is stacked against her. For example she still steadfastly refuses to believe that there is no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism and will pounce on the most tendentious and discredited “evidence” to try to ridicule the notion of man made global warming (see the comments to the piece for why this is rubbish). Furthermore, I have previously documented her strongly held belief that Barack Obama was not just the second best candidate in the US presidential election but a serious threat to Western civilisation as we know it (and especially to Israel).
Well now Mel has turned her attention to the theory of Intelligent Design and is most upset at the Today programme for “misrepresentation of Intelligent Design as a form of Creationism”. Now those of us who believe that ID is in fact Creationism dressed in fancy trousers in order to give it a veneer of respectability may scoff, but Mel is most insistent
the fact is that Intelligent Design not only does not come out of Creationism but stands against it. This is because Creationism comes out of religion while Intelligent Design comes out of science.
Yes, Intelligent Design is in fact a bona fide scientific theory. And how does Mel justify this claim?
Creationism, whose proponents are Bible literalists, is a specific doctrine which holds that the earth was literally created in six days. Intelligent Design, whose proponents are mainly scientists, holds that the complexity of science suggests that there must have been a governing intelligence behind the origin of matter, which could not have developed spontaneously from nothing.
So in part it is a scientific theory because many of its advocates are scientists. Well maybe they are, although Mel offers no evidence for this, but then many scientists are Christians but this does not in itself make Christianity a scientific theory. What is relevant is not just whether an advocate of a particular belief is a scientist but also whether they are qualified in the particular field under discussion and whether they are able to back up their views with actual evidence. AGW skeptics such as Mel always point to petitions signed by lots of “scientists” who support their view but very few of them have any kind of qualification in climate science.
Yes, there are certainly questions still to be answered around the beginning of the universe and the origin of matter, the big bang, the existence of dark matter etc. but there is no serious body of scientific opinion proposing ID as an answer. There is much excitement about what secrets the Large Hadron Collider might yield (once it is fixed) but there is no suggestion that it will reveal the hand of a hidden designer (Mel does know that the “god particle” is named ironically, right?).
Then there is evolution, the other target of ID-ers. well it is one of the most successful scientific theories devised by mankind. Not only can we see the evidence in the world around us but with the discovery of DNA and the nature of heredity we understand how it works at the molecular level. There is simply no need for an Intelligent Designer and not the slightest bit of evidence for one.
In fact Intelligent Design does not, even by Mel’s own reasoning, ”come out of science”, it is a rejection of science. If you hold that “the complexity of science suggests that there must have been a governing intelligence behind the origin of matter” then you are explicitly rejecting the possibility that science will itself provide an explanation of those complexities we do not yet fully understand. There are questions to which science cannot currently provide an answer but that doesn’t mean we have to consider any other superficially attractive proposition when there is no actual evidence to support it. The US National Academy of Sciences puts it well
Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge
So if ID is not science is it really of a different nature to Creationism as Mel claims? Not really - many religious believers do not take the creation myth as a literal description of how God created the earth, but they still believe there is a creator and this belief relies on faith, not evidence. As does the existence of Mel’s Intelligent Designer - he may not be the same as the Christian/Jewish god (although given that Mel is a devout Jew it would be rather odd if this was the case) but his existence still requires a leap of faith. And it is this reliance on faith which separates both ID and Creationism from science. That is not to paint all people with religious beliefs as “anti-science” - most of them understand perfectly well the distinction between religion and science. What advocates of ID do is try to blur those boundaries - in fact they go further than trying to explain what science cannot, they (like the Creationists) try to provide alternative explanations for that which science itself can explain perfectly well.
That is why Intelligent Design is irrational, anti-science and anti-intellectual. And the irony is that this is from someone who sees themselves in the forefront of the battle to defend Western civilised values and rationalism from the forces of barbarism (i.e. Islam). One of the commenters puts it succinctly -
In the World War over religion, between the allies of Modernity and the axis of Mediaevelism Melanie Phillips is actually on the same side as the Iranian Mullahs, the Saudi princes and the Taleban
Sort out MPs’ expenses once and for all
Posted by Andrew Adams on April 28, 2009
Filed Under New Labour, Politics | Leave a Comment
In the least surprising development since Allen Stanford turned out to be a bit dodgy, it seems that Gordon Brown’s plan to reform MPs’ expenses has backfired on him. One really has to wonder what he was thinking of - the weird Max Headroom style video was a bad enough start, then he failed to consult the leaders of the other major parties which was both wrong both in principle as this really is a matter on which there should be cross party agreement and tactically as it made it much more unlikely that his plans would be voted through by MPs. Maybe this was part of his plan, to get the Tories to oppose him so that he could accuse them of being on the side of those MPs who were abusing the system. Unfortunately for him he obviously didn’t bank on the fact that his own MPs would be equally unimpressed by his proposals. And then there was the proposal for a £150 attendance allowance, the idea which received the most ridicule of all. This was an idea copied from, of all places, the European Parliament which is the TGV of gravy trains whereas by comparison the Commons is the DLR. All in all it’s another cock up and another nail in his coffin.
Great debut albums
Posted by Andrew Adams on April 17, 2009
Filed Under Culture, Music, Pop | 9 Comments
NME has a special issue this week to mark the 20th anniversary of the release of “The Stone Roses”, hailing it as “the greatest debut album ever”. Now I have to say I have never been a big fan of the Roses anyway and never really got the whole Manchester “baggy” thing but I guess it was one of those albums which perfectly captured the moment, a bit like “Sgt Pepper” or “Never Mind The Bollocks”. But strip away all that and consider the album purely on its own merits and it’s, well, OK. Not bad. It has a few decent songs but only one great one (”I Am The Resurrection”). Greatest debut album ever? Hmm…I would humbly suggest the following nominations for that accolade
1. The Velvet Underground - “The Velvet Underground and Nico”
2. The Jesus and Mary Chain - “Psychocandy”
3. The New York Dolls - “The New York Dolls”
4. Roxy Music - “Roxy Music”
5. Patti Smith - “Horses”
OK, maybe a bit narrow in terms of style and the timeframe but it’s not as though I stopped buying music in 1985, I just can’t think of any truly great debut albums since then which would stand up against those above, and I think you have to an extent consider works which have stood the test of time. Anyway, alternative suggestions greatfully received.
A banker writes
Posted by Andrew Adams on March 31, 2009
Filed Under Civil liberties, Politics, Society | 2 Comments
No doubt by the time you read this I and my colleagues will be manning the barricades, creating makeshift shelters from upturned desks and filing cabinets in order to repel the rampaging hordes at our doors, at least if the combined wisdom of the media and the City of London police is to believed. As someone working in a bank in the City I have been subject to various dire warnings about the possible events of the next 48 hours and the various precautions we should take to protect ourselves from the inevitable mayhem.
Bankers are told to avoid wearing business clothes in order to be less conspicuous, presumably on the basis that the standard garb for anarchistic anti-capitalist protesters is polo shirts, chinos and loafers. Now even jeans and trainers are allowed, next they will be telling us to sport dreadlocks and have a dog on a piece of string. We are told to cancel routine business meetings, not to leave the building unless it is absolutely essential, people due to visit local clinics for medical appointments have had them cancelled.
Of course it is true that there have been previous demonstrations which have ended in violence, notably the May Day protests in 2000. But I also remember most of that day being entirely peaceful and good natured - I remember going out at lunchtime and there was a big party going on in Lower Thames Street with sound systems and people on unfeasibly tall stilts. It was good fun and not in the slightest threatening or intimidating. OK a few idiots spoiled things later on, but then there were also certain City types fanning the flames by hanging out of their windows waving £20 notes at the protesters.
But what really gets me is that we are essentially being braved to weather a descending hoard of alien beings, as if somehow those protesting and those of us who work in the City are different species altogether. OK, there are probably some amongst both groups who think this - protesters who see us as evil capitalists and colleagues who look down on them as the great unwashed, but I never believed this was really true before and I think this is even less so now. I expect a lot of the protesters will not be of the kind on previous demonstrations in the city - they will be “ordinary” (no disrespect meant to them or the others) people angry at the damage which has been done by certain people within our industry, and quite rightly so. And we are angry as well, our jobs are at risk or have already been lost, we have families to support and bills to pay and most of us are not earning huge salaries and getting mega bonuses. We also have friends and families who are suffering. This is certainly not a plea for sympathy, maybe some will see me as a hypocrite, but I just want to point out the absurdity of the idea of us being penned in our offices for our own “safety” from people who are no different from us who just want to vent their entirely reasonable anger and frustration at a system that has failed.
So I hope that as many people as possible turn up tomorrow, and hope and expect that it will be a peaceful (ok, noisy but non-violent) occasion. I hope the police will not be as ridiculously heavy handed as I fear they may be. And assuming I am not manacled to my desk for my own safety I will certainly pop out for a while to give my (possibly unwelcome) support.
Update (8am on 1st April): Just walked into the office to find it had been taken over by anarchists. Then I realised that it was just my normal colleagues but they were wearing jeans. Phew!
Mind your language
Posted by Andrew Adams on March 25, 2009
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
It seems that the right wing tabloids have found themselves a new hero, a brave “patriot” upholding British values in the manner of the infamous metric martyrs.
This time our hero is “patriotic postmaster” Deva Kumarasiri, who banned people who were unable to speak English from his Sneinton Boulevard post office in Nottingham.
Mr Kumarasiri, 40, introduced a ban on non-English speakers after claiming they ‘annoyed’ other customers by causing delays and made it difficult for him to do his job.
‘I told people to learn some English or come back with an interpreter,’ he said.
He said he banned only five people and most of the community had supported him. But members of the local mosque are said to have started a petition against him.
According to another report
His bold stand against nonintegration has sent a shudder of political correctness down whatever spine the post office has these days, and infuriated some local do-gooders who accused him of inciting division among the community.
Now I don’t doubt that it can be frustrating for Mr Kumarasiri to deal with customers who don’t speak English and also for his other customers who experience delays as a result. I also would agree that people who move to a foreign country should make an effort to learn the language, it is in their interest and that of the rest of us. But it is not Mr Kumarasiri’s place to be the arbiter of such things, he is there to provide a service to his customers, a service which for many people is a fairly essential one. By refusing to serve certain people he is not only doing a disservice to the community but also his employer who owns the shop and will no doubt see his profits suffer and to the post office itself which expects its postmasters top provide the service it is paying them for. This is nothing to do with political correctness, nor are those who complain “do-gooders”.
Anyway, Mr Kumarasiri has now been moved to another branch where he is not likely to encounter such problems (ie in a mainly white area) and so hopefully hat is the end of the matter. In fact I don’t actually have any great animosity towards him, I think he is wrong on this issue but he is not wicked or bigoted. What concerns me more is the way he is held up as a great patriotic hero by the right wing tabloids. It is not hard to see why this story appeals to them - it gives them the chance to indulge in a bit of immigrant bashing while at the same time deflecting accusations of bigotry by pointing out that the guy they are defending is an immigrant himself. But do immigrants really need to go to these lengths before they get the approval of the Daily Mail?
I won’t be beating my wife (well at least until 2012)
Posted by Andrew Adams on March 23, 2009
Filed Under Civil liberties, New Labour, Politics | Leave a Comment
Justin at Chicken Yoghurt points out that Labour MP Tom Harris is compaining about the blogosphere not taking notice of the government’s decision to deny bailiffs the right to break into people’s homes and use force against them in order to recover debts.
Presumably it doesn’t occur to Harris that the reasons for this are
1. The people who proposed giving bailiffs these powers were his own government and since when should people get credit for deciding not to do things which are stupid and unprincipled? They deserve stick for proposing these measures in the first place not credit for changing their minds.
2. It is only postponed until 2012 when regulation of bailiffs will come in to force.
Still, I would like to inform Tom Harris that henceforth I will not be beating my wife (well at least until 2012) and I await his acclaim for my good character.
keep looking »