Punitive leap-frog

Veteran cunning politicain Jack Straw fell from  statesman to hack yesterday 

Second thoughts are usually better than first thoughts.  Titans prisons have been junked in favour of smaller Promethean prisons. One mark out three for that, Jack No marks for believing that the rising prison population is a success. It's a tragic failure. No marks either for opting for more privatised prisons. 

The increasingly impressive LibDem spokesman David Howarth accused Jack of trying to curry short-term favour with tabloid editors.' He nailed Jack with this bulls eye jibe, " The game of  punitive leap-frog between the Labour and Conservative parties is an expensive indulgence that the country should no longer tolerate."

Jack got down and dirty. He attacked with a stale  coarse politics trick of reducing Howarth's comments to an absurdity and their attacking his own creation. "I now look forward to every Liberal Democrat “Focus” leaflet across the country declaring the consequence of that policy, which is that dangerous and violent offenders and persistent drug dealers will no longer be sent to prison". That's not what he said Jack.

Gordon Prentice restored some dignity to Labour's case by asking, "Is not asking the public what offenders should do as part of the community payback scheme the worst kind of populist nonsense imaginable?"

Populism is the name of the chaotic failed prison polices of both major parties.

Home of the mind

From the  maelstom of European politics a cool sane voice was heard today.

The Council of Europe  has a great record in promoting Human Rights. A worthy debate was marred by speaker from the Russian Federation to excoriate the Baltic States for alleged breaches of human rights. Compared to the gross violations of Moscow the sins of Riga, Tallinn and Vilnius

 are venial.

The President of Finland Tarja Halonen charmed the Council today with testimony of her admirably enlightened country. She asked why her country had none of  the  language friction suffered by most European countries.

She said said the secret was respect for the use of Finnish and Swedish throughout a millennium of history. She used a telling expression that was striking to all speakers of more that one language. 'Language is the home of the mind'. The Hungarian literate Istvan Szechenyi answered the question 'Where do you find the nation?' with the telling reply, 'The nation lives in her language'.  

In the Tower of Babel of a hundred languages of the Council of Europe, the Finnish President recognition of the supreme importance of langauge was thoroughly understood.

Lies and prejudice

Whichever way you slice it, it is still a subsidy, a handout a violation of free  market forces.

 

A summit meeting in the Commons tomorrow will seek aid for collapsing regional and local newspapers. They perform a vital function and they will be missed. But why should taxpayers subsidise virulently party political news-sheets? We support the broadcasters because they have a duty of balance imposed on them. Why should the papers not accept political balance?

I checked the political temperature of my local paper tonight. It is still in the deep blue zone. They have produced a propagandist story that masquerades as news. It purports to be a tale of the wicked Government deliberately cutting benefits to a disabled former soldier. No Government has done that since 1935. Any such proposal by any party would not stand a chance of being approved by parliament. Although he is not a constituent of mine, I have previously had two long conversations with the ex-soldier involved. He explained to m his problems with his benefits. I advised him to take up this anomaly  with his own MP and with ex-servicemens' organisations. 

The true story is that the ex-serviceman appears to have fallen between two benefits. One for the 'unemployable' and the other for those seeking work. Among the other errors of the story is a bit of the obligatory MP bashing by quoting the wholly untrue claim that MPs have just 'voted themselves a £25,000 a year rise in expenses.' That is a direct lie.

Should taxpayers' money be doled out to keep propaganda sheets alive?

Comments

[JOhn]

Off the top of my head the prison population has risen from around 40,000 to over 80,000 since labour came to power. I'm sure someone will correct me if these figures are incorrect.
THis is another example of us following the Americans who have 5% of the worlds population yet have 40% of the worlds prison population...its the land of the free after all.
It is obscene that non violent drug offenders get more jail time than rapists and violent offenders.
Even the recent panel on sentancing guidelines admits that jail has little or no deterrant affects on drug users yet the 2 main parties swagger around like bullies in the playground seeing who can be the most tough on drugs. It would be funny if it wasn't such a huge waste of money that we all pay for.
The sooner that we start to view drug use as a public health problem rather than one of criminality the sooner we can stop building prisons wasting police and justice time and reduce the harms caused by drug use under prohibition

[Kay Tie]

You're pushing on an open door on this blog, John.

[HuwOS]

from the sunday times May 31, 2005

Total jail population: 76,035

* 128 state-run jails

* 11 privately run jails

* Average cost per prisoner a year in state jail: £25,718

* Average cost in private jail: £31,502

* Total number of people sent to jail in 2003: 93,500

* 24,280 offenders serving four years or more in 2003, a 109 per cent increase in a decade

* Average length of custody, excluding life, given at Crown Court rose from 20.4 months in 1993 to 26.8 months in 2003

* It costs more than £2 billion a year to run Prison Service
*************
From politics.co.uk 7/4/2009

The prohibition of drugs in the UK costs the taxpayer £16 billion a year, a charity has calculated.

Transform – which campaigns for the liberalisation of drug laws – published a cost analysis today which concluded that prohibition is "delivering precisely the opposite of the government's stated claims".

The figure was reached through a combination of increase in supply and use, health problems and high levels of crime.

Those three factors combined to cost the government £16.785 billion a year, the charity claimed.
***********************************
For what those are worth.
My problem is that I cannot understand where the howls of outrage are.
I would have thought that people who begrudged MP's expenses (both reasonable and unreasonable) would have some kind of interest in the possible waste of 16 billion pounds, but I guess it isn't really about the money and more about personal greed and envy with the foaming at the mouth brigade.

[Kay Tie]

That door is swinging on its hinges, Huw. If you want something to push against, nip over to the Telegraph and read this cant:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5238846/Medical-student-dies-after-taking-party-drug-GBL-that-Home-Office-failed-to-ban.html

Despite being too cosy to Downing Street, the Telegraph has lost none of its frothy Old Tory outrage.

[Paul Flynn]

Th Telegraph story KayTie is based on the fable that banning a drug reduces its use.
When will they learn?

[John]

THe telegraph story also shows the hypocrisy and discrimination engendered by our drug laws
Yesterday 23 people died directly from alcohol use and around 270 died from tobacco.We allow adults the freedom to use both these drugs yet discriminate agaisnt users who decide to use other intoxicants than the ones sanctioned by the state. Some of these intoxicants such as Ecstasy cannabis and the psychedelics are less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco yet can attract jail time of upto 14 years.
THe only justification that Vernon Coaker has for this situation of alcohol and tobacco being legal and less dangerous drugs being illegal is Historical and Cultural precedents.
Because of these "Historical and Cultural precedents" we threaten the liberty, employment, home and family of adults who choose to use illegal drugs.
If we discriminate due to colour religion or sexual orientation there is outrage yet the discrrimination of an estimated 4-5 million illegal drug users continues unabated.

[Kay Tie]

"When will they learn?"

Alas I fear it is the human condition to respond so emotionally to something. Slowly the force of logic of those who oppose prohibition is building, and one day everything will change and the prevailing "wisdom" will move on. To the point where we will wonder what all the fuss was about (as anyone who today studies the early Christian church wonders why everyone was so het up about homoousios vs. homoiousios).

Didn't Marx bang on about this in his dialectic materialism? Since I didn't study Marx beyond realising he was an epic moocher, I can't say for sure. Perhaps one of the old Trots here can tell me?

[HuwOS]

I don't believe the homoousios vs homoiousios situation is as dead as you think Kay Tie.
After all it is one of the principal differences between the catholic church and other denominations of christianity.
So by that measure, it is still important to millions of people around the globe.

Mostly those who use alcohol and tobacco only, feel no need to campaign or support the legalisation of other drugs and it makes them feel good to perceive as criminal and denounce those who use other drugs.
Everyone likes to feel superior at times,
no matter how unjustified such a feeling may be,
even you Kay Tie,
otherwise why would you bring up
homoousios vs. homoiousios, refer to Marx as banging on about things and as an epic moocher or refer to other readers of Paul's blog as old trots.

Maybe you can be happy now that although we agree on an issue, perhaps; we can still have a bit of an old bash at each other any way.

[Kay Tie]

"I don't believe the homoousios vs homoiousios situation is as dead as you think Kay Tie."

I don't think people are het up about it. At least not to the point where they kill heretics.. Poor Arians.

I don't feel superior to Marx, if that's what you're trying to say. And does anyone deny that he was an epic moocher? One has to admire his chutzpah.

"refer to other readers of Paul's blog as old trots"

Oh, not all of them. As the readership widens, some new Trots are coming in. And some non-Trots too.

[Jolly Roger]

Here's propaganda masquerading as news,
About the Wicked Government who won't pay their dues.
The case that you quote is just like mine,
Denied my benefits as if it were a fine.
I served my country and was denied my money,
Like the chap in the paper it just wasn't funny.
This sorry case that I have to peddle,
Is sorrier still as they gave me a medal.

Unfortunately, medals are not much good
In Tesco's or Asda when shopping for food.
Mine currently sits in the back of the drawer,
Do you want to buy it for a couple of score?
Pensioned off and put out for scrap,
After almost thirty years of dealing with crap.
Treated like the stuff that gets stuck to your shoe,
So that expenses can be paid to MPs like you.

Here he goes again, I here you say.
Ranting as long as the livelong day,
But this is a story that epitomises,
Your party in it's foulest of guises.
Again, if you think that I jest,
Just check it out with Cardiff West.
Herewith enclosed my fullest permish,
To discuss it with him, if you so wish.

I thought for myself, that's what I did,
And ended up not far from the Row they call Skid.
I was retired as a result of injuries received,
And 'languished' on benefits, and little was achieved.
"You can't go on like this", I said, "this is a farce,
You're not entirely useless, get up off your a*se."
So that's what I did. Oh, what a Berk.
I undertook unpaid voluntary work.

On the advice of my Doctor, "It'll do you good,
Helping out folks in the neighbourhood".
So that's what I did, it made me feel better,
Until the day that I had the Brown Letter.
"Come down and see us at JobCentrePlus,
We've got a small matter we'd like to discuss.
You've been working, we've had a call,
We're stopping your money, you're getting ****all."

"What do you mean"? I vehemently cried.
"It's voluntary work". Somebody's lied.
They just didn't listen and a target was filled,
And for the benefit that I'd received, I was subsequently billed.
Appeals, Tribunals, Commissioners too,
Ombudsman, Ministers, all NuLabour crew.
They all sided with the Jobcentre,
And fed me to the dogs, like so much placenta.

And to add to my injury, they now insult me.
I've even been turned down by Tony McNulty.
Darling, Blunkett, Peter Hain,
Have all added to my lifetime's pain.
Yet all have been less than opaque,
In their claims for expenses, the maximum uptake.
Lining their pockets with amoral pay.
As for me, I'm just in the way.

They've all sung the mantra from Wrexham to Raith.
"We did what we did in complete GOOD FAITH."
Well, strangely enough, so did I,
'Though all I've received is a poke in the eye.
And just to add to my prolonged declension,
They've even stopped part of my Old Age Pension.
All this which has driven me close to berserk,
Is for doing UNPAID VOLUNTARY WORK.

[Kay Tie]

You were in the army, Jolly Roger, so you should know better: never volunteer.

That's the thing about New Labour: their unintended consequences. Always fiddling around, creating new rules and regulations. And most of the time, they miss the intended target and boomerang back on unintended victims. But is there ever an apology? Do they rush to put things right? Do they heck!

The Tories were the same: just as vicious. It's a hallmark of British Government through the ages. I saw some graffiti when I was a kid that's stuck with me. It said "Don't vote: the Government always gets in". It's so true.

[Jolly Roger]

No, Kay Tie, I wasn't in the Army,
But still served my country, I must have been barmy.
I know of others in a similar plight,
Who thought that what they were doing was right.
Service to country and all that good stuff,
Is risky enough and if you fall, it's just tough.
Your graffiti quote reminds me of another of late.
"I love my Country, it's the Government that I hate".

[Brian Barker]

I agree with your Tower of Babel comment.

In today's World. the language problem is still relevant and I believe that the World, now, needs a common, non-national, neutral language!

Why not teach such a language, in all countries, in all schools, worldwide?

The contest between English and Esperanto seems to be a David & Goliath situation. But don't forget who won in the end

If you have time, please see http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_YHALnLV9XU as well as the Esperanto website, http://www.lernu.net