StatCounter

Showing posts with label Punishment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Punishment. Show all posts

Monday, 1 August 2016

Life term for IS-inspired Tube attacker Muhiddin Mire per BBC News

The headline says 'life' but read on in this BBC report http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36942245 and you discover that:
'Mire will begin his sentence at Broadmoor secure hospital, where he will serve a minimum of eight-and-a-half-years before he is considered for parole.'
Eight and a half years is not really a life sentence is it?

Monday, 18 February 2013

Can you spot the missing point?

This BBC report I have quoted in full, can you spot the question that just isn't being asked?

'A solicitor has been jailed for 10 years at the Old Bailey for running an immigration sham marriage scam.

Tevfick Souleiman and immigration advisers Cenk Guclu and Furrah Kosimov were found guilty of conspiracy to breach immigration law last week.

Souleiman, from Hatfield, and Guclu, from Enfield, were also convicted of receiving proceeds of crime.

Kosimov, 29, from Wembley, was also convicted of money laundering.

He was found guilty in his absence as he is believed to have fled to his native Uzbekistan.

Guclu, 41, of Enfield, and Kosimov, were jailed for nine years.

Souleiman, 39, was told he had let down his profession and destroyed the trust placed in lawyers.

Judge John Bevan said members of Souleiman GA solicitors had run a "conveyor belt" of brides being flown in from eastern European countries.

They would marry men they had never met from non-EU countries and be flown out the next day after being paid by the north London firm.

Another of the firm's immigration advisers, Zafer Altinbas, 38, of Islington, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to breach immigration law and receiving money from the proceeds of crime as the trial started.

He was jailed for six years and nine months.

Judge Bevan said it would be hard to find a similar scam of the same scale and sophistication.

He added: "A heavy responsibility for upholding the law rests with the lawyers.

"If the public cannot trust them, who can they trust. You have destroyed that trust by driving a coach and horses through these rules."

An estimated 1,800 men, including members of the Albanian mafia, were able to live in Britain by taking part in sham marriages over eight years.

Women from eastern European countries were flown to Britain to marry men from outside the EU.
They turned up at register offices having never met, and were sometimes unable to speak a common language.

Men would pay up to £14,000 to Souleiman GA Solicitors for a marriage package.

This would include fake tenancy agreements, employer's references and forged documents.

Clients would travel from as far as Devon and Scotland and marriages would take place in a number
of registrars' offices.

Only £2m of unexplained income had been found in bank accounts. The rest is thought to have been
smuggled out of the country.

The racket was uncovered after British police cracked an Albanian drugs and money laundering gang in London.

The brothers at the head had undergone marriages arranged by the firm.'

Spotted it?
 'An estimated 1,800 men, including members of the Albanian mafia, were able to live in Britain by taking part in sham marriages over eight years.'

The question - have any of these 1,800 men who should have no legal right to be in the UK been deported? I think I know I know the answer to that question.

Thursday, 7 February 2013

Pathetic sentencing

2 years in prison, less remission of course for this?
' "Kiran had severe double frontage brain damage. He cannot walk, talk, eat or drink, he is just a shell of the man he used to be.'

http://m.thisistotalessex.co.uk/story.html?aid=17815977

Tuesday, 15 November 2011

What is wrong with the UK's Prison Service?

Even when a criminal is jailed for his crimes, and it seems to take a long time for the criminal courts to get to that stage, it seems that the Prison Service runs a less than tight ship. Here's a report from the BBC that I am quoting as I cannot find the Telegraph article, that I read in the paper on Sunday, online today.

A judge has criticised a prison for releasing a drugs baron on home leave 13 months into a six-year jail term.
Judge Peter Jacobs branded the situation a "farce" after Mohammed Rafiq, from Dudley in the West Midlands, failed to attend a hearing at Norwich Crown Court.

It emerged Rafiq, 35, had been sent home from prison for the weekend.

The judge asked Norwich Prison officials to explain the decision in court - but said he had been ignored.
Judge Jacobs said: "So far, nobody from the Prison Service has arrived. If they do arrive, I will hear what they have to say with interest."

He had expected the prison to bring the defendant to court on Thursday for a hearing under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

Instead, it emerged that former taxi driver Rafiq had been allowed to return to his home for the weekend, 13 months into his sentence.

...

"I will want an explanation in public as to how a man serving a six-year sentence is allowed to go on home leave, despite the fact he is supposed to be here today.

...

Rafiq was part of a gang who ran a network of cannabis factories capable of producing drugs with a street value of about £1m each year.

He managed five cannabis farms in Norwich and several in the Midlands.

Rafiq is serving a six-year sentence after admitting conspiracy to supply controlled drugs in 2010.

He is currently held in Britannia House, the open resettlement unit at Norwich Prison.'
So sentenced to six years in prison Mr Rafiq is held in an 'open resettlement unit' and allowed home  for the weekend. Has any pretence that prisons should be for partly for punishment now been jettisoned? Sometimes the way this country operates its judicial system makes me feel sick.

Thursday, 21 April 2011

Isn't modern Britain marvelous?

Read this story from yesterday's Mail and tell me what sort of punishment the guilty individual who threw the brick should get. Now tell me what you think he will actually get as a sentence. Now tell me how that makes you feel...


'Recalling the incident, Mr Perry said: ‘Jersey-Lou, my partner and my other daughter were with me in the van - they were strapped into the passenger seats.

‘I had pulled over when a group of lads started kicking a ball up against the door.

‘It was scaring the girls so I got out and told them to pack it in because I had young kids inside.


‘A group of about 12 to 15 of them started to walk towards me. I got back in the van and was going to drive away.

‘I started driving off and a guy who had been hiding behind a wall jumped out and threw something.

‘I heard glass smashing and looked over to see if everyone was all right.

‘That’s when I saw Jersey-Lou had been hit. She was out cold and there was blood everywhere.’

Mr Perry drove straight to the Diana, Princess Of Wales Hospital, in Grimsby, where his injured daughter was kept in overnight for observation.

She was treated for a broken nose, two broken front teeth, and dozens of cuts and bruises - but the long-term effects of her injuries will not be known until she has been seen by a bone specialist next week.'
'Police have arrested a 17-year-old youth after a four-year-old girl was left with horrific injuries when she was hit in the face with a brick.

Jersey-Lou Perry was knocked out, her nose was broken and shards of glass were embedded in her face after the disgusting attack in Grimsby.'

The Mail have some quite horrifying photos but somehow I doubt that the judge will give a tough enough sentence.

Saturday, 30 October 2010

Is this an adequate sentence?

The Telegraph report that
'a teenager who attacked a terminally ill grandfather and kicked his head "like a football" has avoided a jail sentence

...

(Reece) Kent admitted carrying out the unprovoked attack and pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm, receiving a six-month suspended sentence.'
A six month suspended sentence to a 19 year old for giving a kicking to a 62 year old cancer sufferer, what is wrong with this country?

Sunday, 17 October 2010

Crime and punishment in the UK after 20+ years of a liberal concensus


'A group of young workers who drunkenly attacked a man on a train celebrated with high fives... (the three) subjected their fellow passenger to a "volley of punches and kicks" and stamped on his head after he complained about their noise on a train between London and Hertford. Each pleaded guilty to violent disorder and assault and was given a four month suspended jail sentence and 300 hours community service'



The Telegraph also reported that
'A teacher who failed to mention being jailed abroad for membership of a banned Islamic group can remain in the classroom.

Ian Nisbet was one of three Britons jailed in Egypt in 2002 for being in Hizb ut-Tahrir, which wants Muslim countries to unite under Sharia Law.... It... decided that it was "not appropriate" to impose any sanction.'



But a crime that is still punishable by the courts is shaving off part of an Imam's beard: 'Three Muslim men have been warned they face jail for shaving off a mosque leader's beard'

It truly is an odd world in which we live, especially as the Imam is himslef facing trial for allegedly sexually abusing boys.

That last element story made me wonder how the BBC were reporting the accusations against Imam Mohammed Hanif Khan bearing in mind their attacks on the Catholic Church for complicity in the sexual abuse of young boys. A quick Google search reveals that whilst all the other top 10 articles report the accustaions against the Imam, the BBC alone report the story from the point of view of the Imam 'BBC News - Ex mosque director denies sex charges in Stoke hearing'. How odd, why would this be? Did the BBC ever report the denials of Catholic priests rather than the accusations against them?

Friday, 24 September 2010

A story to give you hope

'A thief broke into my car. I used Craigslist, a dating site, MySpace and a fast food joint to track him down'

You can read the whole story at Salon.com but here a few extracts to whet your appetite:
'In the first 24 hours after someone broke into my car in my own driveway, I was mostly mad at my husband. Who leaves a backpack with a BlackBerry and a wallet full of cash and credit cards in the car overnight, with a GPS visible on the dashboard and the freaking car doors unlocked? We might as well have hung a sign on the door that read: Suckers live here. Welcome!

...

I canceled four credit cards and ordered a new BlackBerry before I thought to check Craigslist. I didn't know what I'd find, but it occurred to me that pawn shops were the domain of desperate crackheads and that the savvy modern thief would hock stolen wares online. I did a search in a 40-mile radius of my neighborhood. My GPS was the first thing that popped up.

...

After school, my kids and I set out on foot for a scavenger hunt. On one neighbor's lawn, we found the little cardboard wish boxes the kids had decorated at the museum the previous day. We found my discarded Books Inc. frequent book buyers' card, ready to be redeemed, among some bushes. (Not a big reader, this guy.) My backpack lay in someone's driveway, barely hidden by some shrubs. My BlackBerry and makeup were still inside.

...

See, aspiring thief, you just never know what you're stepping into when you hit up a random car on a random street. However badass you think you may be, there is someone on the other side of the robbery. And in this particular case it was someone who escaped the Iranian Revolution as a child; who roamed the world alone for five years because her parents couldn't get out; who watched from a dozen blocks away as the twin towers crumbled; who had just barely clawed her way out of that concentration camp known as late-stage cancer, if only because she was intent on raising her babies, come hell or high water. And all of this before she even turned 40. Can you see how that someone might be way more twisted than you?'


Do read the whole story, it's very 'cool'...

Saturday, 28 August 2010

The ninety-fourth weekly "No shit, Sherlock" award

This week's winner is Ex-Home Office criminologist Professor Ken Pease who has said that community sentences have no evident effect on re-conviction rates in their current form. Apparently using community sentences to replace short prison sentences simply
"freed the group most likely to re-offend to do so sooner, with no evidence of a current treatment benefit from community sanctions to offset that."


"No shit, Sherlock"


And Ken Clarke please take note.

Monday, 26 July 2010

Sunday catchup (part 2)

1. Guyism report the case of 'Joe Sugarman, a man who was kicked out of his United Airlines plane for asking “Are you serving any meals during our flight?” is beyond absurd.' Here's Joe's story in his own words from his site:
'I get to the airport, boarded my plane and I’m sitting in first class. The flight attendant was right in front of me and was curious if they were going to serve meals onboard. So I asked her, “Are you serving any meals during our flight?”

She looked at me kinda funny and said, “I can’t answer that for security reasons.”

A little puzzled, I wondered how it affected security but I let it pass as she went into the cockpit. About three minutes later, two armed Austin police officers boarded the plane, looked at me and said, “Sugarman, follow us.”'


Apparently 'Sugarman was informed afterwards that the reason he was deboarded as because the flight attendant thought he said “Are there any police on this flight?”' Hmmm seems like a over-reaction form a maybe tetchy air-stewardess to me.


2. The Mail reports the less than shocking news that : 'KGB did bug Profumo and Keeler pillow talk to steal nuclear secrets.'


3. The Telegraph reports the slightly more surprising news that:
'Lynn Barber, the journalist whose teenage relationship was turned into the film An Education, has admitted to sleeping with about 50 men during two terms at Oxford. '
50 in roughly 16 weeks is around 3 a week, pretty good going...


4. The Mail reports the case of
'Three teenagers have been found guilty of subjecting a young woman with learning difficulties to three days of sadistic physical and sexual torture.

Darren Hodgkinson, 18, and girls Chelsea Mills, 16, and Chelsea Williams, 14, bruised their victim so severely that people thought she was black.

Nail varnish and cream were rubbed into the woman's hair, which was then shaved off along with her eyebrows.

She was stripped and sexually humiliated before being imprisoned in a wardrobe, and Hodgkinson burned her hands and face with a lighter.'
Horrific crimes I think you will agree and the punishments handed down by the court? Pathetic - '
ringleader Hodgkinson was jailed at Southampton Crown Court for a minimum of four years. Mills was given a two-year detention and training order, and Williams was given an 18-month detention and training order.'
Why so light, were there extenuating circumstances, did the judge have good reasons? It seems not:
'Judge Peter Ralls said: 'This poor woman may never recover from the psychological damage. You picked on her because she was odd and for no motivation other than to satisfy some depraved wish to cause harm.''
If the crimes were that serious why the short sentences?



5. The Mail reports the possible ending of the tyranny of the speed camera - about bloody time too. But I will wait and see before I get too excited, there are too many lefty councils who love to milk and punish the motorist.

Wednesday, 19 May 2010

What is wrong with this country?

Mr Eugenides reports that:
'Via CentreRight, we learn of Blackburn magistrate Austin Molloy, who doesn't mince words:

It was a disgusting crime: two 16-year olds wrote racist and obscene graffiti on prayer books in Blackburn cathedral and bent out of shape a "priceless" cross. Fortunately for the police, the morons also chose to write their names in the Cathedral visitors' book and were thus caught and convicted. [...]

In this case the Chairman of the Magistrates - Austin Molloy - came up with the perfect summation: "Normal people would consider you absolute scum."


Concise and to the point. Suitable punishment was swiftly meted out - to Mr Molloy, who has been suspended for his comments, and now faces disciplinary action.


The court clerk challenged Mr Molloy in open court, saying he had used "inappropriate language".

She then encouraged one of the boys mothers to go ahead with her plans to make an official complaint.'
Sometimes I despair of this bloody country.

Monday, 29 March 2010

Criminalising the Population - Repost from last year

'For a while now my thoughts have been turning to possible reasons for why this Labour government have introduced so many laws but not enforced that many that well. My theory is that with so many laws available, they could use them to make anyone a "criminal" that they choose. In an average day the average London motorist probably breaks a couple of laws - straying into a box junction without the exit being clear, moving into a bus lane to pass a car turning right and blocking the only carriageway allowed to cars, etc. etc. etc. Add to traffic laws, laws relating to waste disposal, other environmental laws, laws preventing photography of policemen etc. etc. etc. and you have a situation where there are too many law-breakers to be dealt with by the police and courts BUT it does mean that the State (or Party) can decide who to investigate and prosecute. In effect we are all "criminals", it's just that most of us are allowed to evade the consequences of this "criminality" unless we incur the displeasure of the State/Party when we will suffer. At the moment the sentences for each of these "crimes" might be a year in prison, how long before it is a prison camp or worse?


Thanks to a comment on Devils Kitchen, here is an extract from Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" that seems pertinent:

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against—then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."'

Saturday, 6 March 2010

Adequate punishment?

Going Fast Getting Nowhere has the details of a seemingly inadequate sentence passed on a seemingly unpleasant individual, here's an extract:
"A joyrider has walked free from court after killing a police dog and injuring two officers in a road smash while three times over the drink-drive limit. Sean Lawson, 20, shouted ‘get in’ as his 12-month prison sentence was suspended at Newcastle Crown Court.

Let's just review the offences committed in one 'incident':

* Rammed a car and then stole it when the owner got out
* Tried to evade arrest by driving away
* Lost control and mounted the pavement while being pursued
* Rammed a police car trying to prevent him driving away
* Speeding, driving on wrong side of the road, blind bend, no lights
* Lost control again
* 90mph with no lights on wrong side of dual carriageway
* Handbrake turn
* Hit police car, injuring two officers
* Hit police dog van, breaking back of police dog, which had to be put down
* All of this while THREE TIMES over the drink-drive limit."


A 12 month suspended sentence for that list of offences? Why? How?

As the aforementioned blogger puts it:
"If you, or I, or any other law-abiding person, had been caught after doing just one of these offences, what do you suppose the penalty would be? Certainly a fine and points for the minor stuff like the handbrake turn or driving on the pavement. Big fine, many points, and a possible ban for the speeding, evading arrest stuff. Definite ban for the drink-driving. Imprisonment for injuring two officers, killing a police dog, causing God-knows-how-much damage to the police vehicles (which you and I will have to pay for, one way or another). Definitely imprisonment for ramming an innocent motorist and stealing his car. And if you or I did all of this in one crazy episode of mindlessness?"

Monday, 16 November 2009

"resettlement overnight release" - another way of diminishing punishment and reducing the protection afforded to the public

The Times alerts me to a new phrase in the liberal lexicon "resettlement overnight release" which means letting long term prisoners out of prison for up to 100 days a year in order to do community service.

The Ministry of Justice's own figures show there has been a sharp rise in the number of occasions when ROR is granted. In 2006, there were 3,813 licences for ROR. In 2007, it was 6,914, and last year, the total was 11,599.

This scheme is marketed as a way of reintegrating etc. etc. etc. but in reality it is a way of quietly reducing prisoner numbers. How does this affect the public? The Times has some examples:
" Harry Roberts, 72, who was given a 42 year jail sentence after murdering three policemen, terrorised a woman while let out on a scheme meant to reacquaint him with life on the outside. His release was cancelled and he remains in jail.

* Robert Foye, who was serving 10 years for the attempted murder of a policeman, raped a 16-year-old girl in August 2007 after being let out on day release to attend an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting.

* Thomas Murray, a convicted murderer and certified schizophrenic, entered the home of Nancy Nolan, an 80-year-old retired schoolteacher, and killed her with a lump hammer while on day release in 2000. "
Labour soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime. In fact Labour the party of criminals for criminals.

Wednesday, 28 October 2009

Typical "mission creep"

This Labour government's mania for control and raising money by any means possible will soon have another wing to it. Ths Times reports that:
"Draconian police powers designed to deprive crime barons of luxury lifestyles are being extended to councils, quangos and agencies to use against the public, The Times has learnt.

The right to search homes, seize cash, freeze bank accounts and confiscate property will be given to town hall officials and civilian investigators employed by organisations as diverse as Royal Mail, the Rural Payments Agency and Transport for London.

The measure, being pushed through by Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, comes into force next week and will deploy some of the most powerful tools available to detectives against fare dodgers, families in arrears with council tax and other minor offenders.

The radical extension of the Proceeds of Crime Act, through a Statutory Instrument which is not debated by parliament, has been condemned by the chairman of the Police Federation. Paul McKeever said that he was shocked to learn that the decision to hand over “intrusive powers” to people who were not police was made without consultation or debate.

“The Proceeds of Crime Act is a very powerful tool in the hands of police and police-related agencies and it shouldn’t be treated lightly,” Mr McKeever said. “There is a behind the scenes creep of powers occurring here and I think the public will be very surprised. They would want such very intrusive powers to be kept in the hands of warranted officers and other law enforcement bodies which are vetted to a very high standard rather than given to local councils.”

His concerns are shared by leading legal figures, who believe that there is a risk of local authorities abusing the powers to search people’s homes, seize their money, freeze their accounts and confiscate their property. They also see parallels with the spread of counter-terrorist surveillance powers to monitor refuse collections and school catchment areas. "
This Labour government may actually be a danger to the general population; a general election should be forced on the dithering fool Gordon Brown, the ever plotting Peter Mandelson, the naive David Miliband and the apparently 'trying to be as authoritarian as David Blunkett' Alan Johnson.

So are we to live in a state where as Sir Ivan Lawrence, QC, a former senior Conservative MP, said
"Far worse is the encouragement being given to non-police bodies to search for what they think are proceeds of crime but may not be and subject the victim to the draconian and manifestly unjust processes of the Proceeds of Crime Act. Does anyone in Government understand that if you give prosecutors, who are supposed to be unbiased ministers of justice, the bribe of a proportion of the money they can find, you are actually poisoning the roots of justice in our society?"


The Times lists the POCA powers as (I emphasis the most worrying items):

"• Freezing a suspect’s assets at the beginning of a criminal investigation

Presumption that all an individual’s assets are acquired through a criminal lifestyle

• Search for and confiscate cash of £1,000 or more

• Demand that banks and other institutions disclose financial information

• Seek confiscation order for assets after a conviction

• Collect a share of confiscated assets "

Marvellous, simply marvellous

Marvellous, simply marvellous; Judge Christopher Ball QC seems to done it again. This time The Mail reports that:
"One of the country's most prolific thieves has been allowed to walk free from court after a judge was told he had turned over a new leaf.

Bradley Wernham, 18, has committed hundreds of offences during a £1million crime spree that began when he was 12 and involved stealing luxury cars and breaking into churches, homes and pubs.

But after admitting 20 burglaries and asking for another 645 offences to be taken into account, he was told that rather than going to jail he was to be relocated to a new town and given a rent-free home to live in with his girlfriend.

The punishment was handed out by Judge Christopher Ball QC, who has caused uproar in the past with a series of lenient sentences."
Aside from a prolific convicted burglar not receiving a custodial sentence and being relocated at the taxpayers expense, there was this sentence that took my eye:
"The Safer Harlow Partnership, a crime reduction body composed of organisations including councils and Essex Police, is covering Wernham's deposit and first month's rent until he can start claiming benefits and pay them back."
So a publically funded quango is "covering" his housing costs until his state benefits kick-in and one part of the state can pay the other back. Let's have a think who never gets the money back? Oh yes the taxpayer, including the 665 who this scrote burgled.

Tuesday, 6 October 2009

The drip, drip, drop of lefty bias

Listening to the Today programme is getting harder and harder as the drip, drip, drip of lefty liberal bias is so insistent. One case this morning was the piece billed as
"Prison governors are urging ministers to scrap prison sentences of less than a year, to ease overcrowding. The Prison Governors Association (PGA) is to debate the idea at its annual conference. Home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw, and the President of the PGA, Paul Tidball, discuss the possible reforms."
The statistic that kept being pushed was that 60% of those who serve prison sentences go on to re-offend, so the conclusion was to cancel all prison sentences of less than 12 months. Of course the question not asked, as it might not be helpful, was what percentage of convicted criminals serving "community sentences" re-offend. Two other questions would be what percentage of convicted criminals serving community sentences re-offend whilst serving their sentence? I am pretty sure this figure would be higher than the re-offending figure for jailed criminals.

Wednesday, 12 August 2009

No one is innocent (update)

Last week I blogged about the release of Ronnie Biggs and put inn a remark that some found distasteful (my emphasis)
"According to Ronnie Biggs' son in a radio interview the other day, his father is dying and cannot speak and is all but immobile; time will tell. His lawyers have said that he has recently suffered two strokes and has facial paralysis, which means he cannot speak or eat."
So I was not hugely surprised to read that (my emphasis): "Freed train robber Ronnie Biggs may be moved to a London care home as early as this weekend after a remarkable improvement in his health.

His family said the relief of being freed by Justice Secretary Jack Straw had given Biggs, 80, strength to fight the pneumonia threatening his life.

They also said his stay in a Norwich hospital, where he was today having surgery to replace a feeding tube, helped his recovery.

The infamous Great Train Robber’s improvement comes days after he was freed from custody on compassionate grounds because of medical evidence that he was unlikely to recover.
I hope that those who called me cynical last week will apologise this week...

Thursday, 6 August 2009

No one is innocent?

And certainly not Ronnie Biggs who is being released from prison on compassionate grounds. How much compassion did Ronnie Biggs show Jack Mills? According to Ronnie Biggs son in a radio interview the other day, his father is dying and cannot speak and is all but immobile; time will tell. His lawyers have said that he has recently suffered two strokes and has facial paralysis, which means he cannot speak or eat.

But who is Jack Mills? Jack Mills was the driver of the Travelling Post Office that was robbed. Jack Mills was hit on the head with an iron bar (not by Ronnie Biggs), causing a black eye and facial bruising; he had constant trauma headaches the rest of his life. So how did Ronnie Biggs show his remorse for the beating of Jack Mills? He recorded a song or two with the post Johnny Rotten Sex Pistols; The delightfully entitled "Belsen Was a Gas" and the rather more pertinent "No One is Innocent" aka "The Biggest Blow (A Punk Prayer)". The original title of the song was to have been "Cosh the Driver" but that was too much even for Virgin Records.

So whilst the BBC have as their lead story the heart-warming tale that "Train robber Biggs wins freedom" accompanied by a photo of a frail and elderly Ronnie Biggs, I choose to remember him slightly differently, singing:
"Ronnie Biggs was doing time until he done a bunk
Now he says he's seen the light and he sold his soul to punk
...
God save Martin Boorman and nazis on the run
They wasn't being wicked God that was their idea of fun
God save Myra Hindley God save Ian Brady
Even though he's horrible and she ain't what you call a lady
...
God save politicians God save our friends the pigs
God save Idi Amin and god save Ronald Biggs
God save all us sinners God save your blackest sheep
God save the good samaritan and god save the worthless creep"
and posing for a cover photo thus:


"Do I regret anything that's happened? No not a single thing I've ever done"

Sunday, 15 March 2009

Criminalising the population

For a while now my thoughts have been turning to possible reasons for why this Labour government have introduced so many laws but not enforced that many that well. My theory is that with so many laws available, they could use them to make anyone a "criminal" that they choose. In an average day the average London motorist probably breaks a couple of laws - straying into a box junction without the exit being clear, moving into a bus lane to pass a car turning right and blocking the only carriageway allowed to cars, etc. etc. etc. Add to traffic laws, laws relating to waste disposal, other environmental laws, laws preventing photography of policemen etc. etc. etc. and you have a situation where there are too many law-breakers to be dealt with by the police and courts BUT it does mean that the State (or Party) can decide who to investigate and prosecute. In effect we are all "criminals", it's just that most of us are allowed to evade the consequences of this "criminality" unless we incur the displeasure of the State/Party when we will suffer. At the moment the sentences for each of these "crimes" might be a year in prison, how long before it is a prison camp or worse?


Thanks to a comment on Devils Kitchen, here is an extract from Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" that seems pertinent:
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against—then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
Looks like I will have to move Atlas Shrugged onto the immediate "to read list".