Fred E.......I feel the Dismissive tone to your post regarding 'British culture' says it all.

As soon as British/English heritage is mentioned,someone will try to dissect and diminish its value.(and those three lions on your shirt,they never sprang from Englands dirt..etc.)

Yes, Britains culture and heritage may be a mish-mash of cultures and values,but what it stands for in people minds is whats important,and should be valued and cherish.

In the same way a 'Traditional Christmas' is a mish-mash of different festivals and cultures from the past(reflecting Pagen/German/Amercan influences,among others).....but we long ago turned it into somthing that was 'ours' and a tradition we are happy to hand from generation to generation.

The 'dismissive' tone was my poor misguided attempt at humour and lightening the atmosphere. Oh well...

A traditional Christmas for whom!? We used to sit around the open fire singing carols with rosie-cheeked glows, and build snowmen (fat chance these days), too. We used to sit down to roast turkey and veg, and stand for the Queen at 3. Who does that these days? I don't doubt that some people are quick to rubbish certain traditions but not me. Traditions can be progressive as well as reactionary and not to see that is not to be a socialist but a futurist! But traditions change, too. It's simply that there are lots of other traditions now. And quite a lot of Britains don't even celebrate Christmas. This is no bad thing in my view. That's up to them. I simply contend that harking back to a mythical "golden age" of what you take to be a stable idea of Englishness or Britishness is simply a fruitless and ill-thought out exercise.

I forced myself to listen to Blunkett on the Today program this morning. Ususally I turn it off when he comes on (or Jack Straw or John Reid.) But I felt it was important.

I felt physically ill at the things he was saying and the way he was justifying taking children of asylum seekers into care and his arrogant and very disturbing refusal to admit the government could ever be wrong in their initial asylum decisions and therefore no real appeal process was needed.

Then the bastard had the nerve to compare seeking asylum and its attendent legal aid to people seeking to get disability living allowance or income support. Excuse me, but I work with those two benefits every day. The complexity is so incomparable I cannot even begin to tell you how spurious a comparison this is. Its like comparing a tricycle to the space shuttle.

I never thought a labour government could be so frightening or so wrong on so many levels. There is something very, very seriously wrong with these people and it scares me and sickens me beyond words.

Did anyone else hear about the statement that labour should try to be a party not just for workers, but employers?

Clueless?

Doesn't even come close to describing it, does it?.

I agree, Maria. What's scary is that they seem utterly convinced in these extreme views. Like someone telling you with wide-eyed enthusiasm and a calm, rational tone why it would be a good idea to expel all red-haired people from London. Of course, this is a joke but in the context it looks pretty mild to what New Labour seem to be proposing. I'm NOT voting for them in the next election unless these racist policies are scrapped and dismissed as the raving-rightist rubbish they are.

I forgot to include in my previous post that it took a government minister to rule that slavery was a violation of human rights in one asylum case after her appeals had been refused before (I'm saying this in light of Blunkett's assertion that the government doesn't make mistakes and therefore the right of appeal should be drastically curtailed.)

Refusal to grant asylum to slave escapee overturned by Minister
Mende Nazer, 23, sought asylum in the UK after she escaped from her ‘owners’ (Sudanese diplomats) who kept her as a slave in their household in London.

The refusal letter, sent to her lawyers two years after her application, said that her treatment (forced, unpaid labour) would not amount to “serious violations of human rights (…) The Secretary of State does not believe that the alleged treatment you received whilst living in the UK would constitute persecution.”

So they don't believe people should have more than one level of appeal?

I am nearly speechless at the idea that anyone could seriously believe that slavery does not amount to a serious violation of human rights.

Or there's this:

Refusal to grant asylum to slave escapee overturned by Minister
Mende Nazer, 23, sought asylum in the UK after she escaped from her ‘owners’ (Sudanese diplomats) who kept her as a slave in their household in London.

The refusal letter, sent to her lawyers two years after her application, said that her treatment (forced, unpaid labour) would not amount to “serious violations of human rights (…) The Secretary of State does not believe that the alleged treatment you received whilst living in the UK would constitute persecution.”

The woman ran a shop with her son near the Congolese border and lived with her son. Four soldiers came to her home and questioned her and her son about the rebel group (ADF). The soldiers brutally beat the
son in front of his mother and then found a case under the bed. The woman was questioned about the key to the case and then raped twice. The soldiers left with her son, who appeared to be seriously injured, and the woman has never seen her son again. The woman feared for her life and her other children’s safety and fled to Kampala and then to the UK in 2000 with the help of a friend. She has been diagnosed by a consultant psychiatrist as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and has also tried to commit suicide since her arrival in the UK.

The inability to admit to any possibility of error is very frightening. Its the sign of serious mental disturbance as far as I'm concerned.
I think Martyn should give up his Labour Party membership. I was all in favour of the "change from the inside" approach, but these people are beyond redemption or excuse.

Maria.....It's worrying and wrong that this woman was refused asylum.....But its the fact that Britain has no way of stopping the sort of people that attacked her family,from entering this country(if they so wished)that i find just as frightening.

For those that didn't see it...

Blunkett in contempt.

I listened to him say what he said on the today programme and although I'm admittedly somewhat biased there is no way any weasel words now like "I was stating the obvious" can help.

If a truck driver listening to the news can be perfectly aware that a line has been stepped over then we can only hope that the judiciary take this further.

That's assuming that the judiciary we have now, one that I'm constantly critcising for being so racist and anti working class, is left alone by Blunkett who seems hell bent on removing many of its powers and taking them for himself...to make us all safer.

To think I praised the man, when he built an alternative form of government in Sheffield in oppostion to Thatcher ... emulating Ken Livingstone and our "socialist" London .. Oh Time, you heartless bastard!

There seem to be no depths to which the unspeakable shit will not go...

The home secretary, David Blunkett, plans to impose a £500 surcharge on each of the 900,000 migrants who enter Britain each year to work, study or join family members, the Guardian has learned.

As you can imagine, Maria thinks this is a great plan.

I'm sure she'd love it, Martyn . When I wanted my residence permit here I had to show that, in the event of falling on hard times", I wouldn't go to the welfare state in one of the wealthiest countries in the world for "hand-outs" (we also have the world's tightest immigration and asylum laws). I had to show that I had at least 7.5 grand at my disposal. It was, though, notional in that I could simply produce a bank cheque to demosnstrate this (which my mother-in-law did, despite the money being pretty much fictional).

Oddly enough, because Danes never have to go through the ritual humiliation and red tape of securring one of these residence permits they don't know what to do. It was an Italian student on my Danish course who informed me of this nice little trick. It's a fucking joke. After 5 years in the country, a job, a marriage and a child, they deemed me sufficiently committed to staying so they gave me me permanent residence status a year ago. It was a relief never to have to go through that again. Maria has full sympathy.

The Young Tories will love him ... one of them posts on here did you know ...

Top of the 'Trots'.

Current top five.

1.(-) Matt W
2.(2) Alberr
3.(4) Dickie
4.(1) Martyn
5.(3) Fred E


Sorry Carol you've slipped out of the top five this week......(your recent posts have just been too sane).

You've even got that wrong KLF

For your information here is the last chart you posted

As you can see I'm up one place to 3 not down one

How cool is that

1. Martyn
2. Alberr
3. Fred E
4. Dickie
5. Carol

Sorry Dickie....My mistake.

I've just edited it.

Fan q KLF

The trots are not to be scoffed at ... as many a dedicated drinker on here will tell you ... or did that silly klf mean something else?

That's just nonsense and you know it. Or you should. Have you done any research whatsover into the rules regarding immigration and asylum in place in this country?
I have.
I have some personal knowledge as someone subject to immigration control.
I know its a challenge but actually taking in some information from a source besides the tabloids for a change before you spout off.

Incidentally, not that its hard to find this information, but this is pertinent to a previous "conversation."

Wanted: a baby boom

With nearly one woman in four not having any children, the population of Britain will start falling after 2040 - with disastrous consequences, reports Jamie Doward

Jamie Doward, social affairs editor
Sunday December 14, 2003
The Observer

The evidence is now conclusive: women are turning their back on childbirth and marriage in unprecedented numbers as part of a radical redefinition of the female role in society.

Against a backdrop of sweeping social change, new figures reveal that around one in four women is now taking a conscious decision not to conceive, preferring the freedom and career opportunities of a child-free life. And those who do have children are opting for smaller families later.

The cultural shift has prompted alarm among demographers, who warn that it has grave consequences for the future prosperity of the UK, while relationship counsellors fear it will tear more and more couples apart.

According to predictions in the Office of National Statistics' latest Population Trends report, about 22 per cent of women are now choosing not to have children, compared with just nine per cent of women born half a century ago.

The figure confirms the acceleration of a trend towards childlessness in women that first emerged in the 1980s, but which politicians and economists had hoped by now would be in decline. 'A lot of this is to do with relationship change,' said Lynda Clarke, a demographer with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM).

'Women are delaying marriage or partnerships. And they're delaying having their first-born. They have jobs and they don't want to lose their economic autonomy. Then they get to 40 and say: "Oops, I forgot to have children".'

Often events conspire to stop women having children. 'Basically, about 80 to 90 per cent of women start life thinking, "I'll have children later", but some just never get around to it,' said Clarke. 'Perhaps they don't meet the right person, or they meet someone who already has children from a previous relationship.'

But profound societal changes also appear to have bolstered the trend to childlessness. 'There used to be a real stigma attached to not having children, but that has weakened,' said Kaye Wellings, Professor of Sexual and Reproductive Health at LSHTM. 'We've become more tolerant of diversity, more multicultural and increasingly tolerant of sexuality and many other things. This is part of a bigger picture.'

The increased confidence among women to reject society's mores was reflected last week with the publication of statistics showing that one women in four now marries a man younger than herself. The 'toyboy' phenomenon earned a few wry smiles and did wonders for the profile of Joan Collins, but there is now evidence that women's empowerment is causing tension among couples.

'If you'd asked me about this seven years ago, I would say the choice of whether to have children or not was a non-issue for couples. But that's not the case now,' said Denise Knowles, a relationship counsellor with Relate.

'Invariably it comes down to women not wanting to have children and the man wanting them. The problem usually surfaces when the couple hit their thirties and the man wants children to complete their lifestyle,' said Knowles. 'But this often means the woman giving up her career.'

With 60 per cent of children born in wedlock, marriage continues to have a powerful role in governing fertility rates. According to the Population Trends report, the average British woman married at 23 at the start of the 1980s, compared with just over 28 today. By 2020, the ONS predicts the average woman in the UK will have her first child only a few months before she hits 30, considerably later in the fertility cycle than that of her predecessors.

This may partially explain why almost a third of women in the 1960s had three or four children, whereas today the figure has shrunk to less than a quarter of that.

Overall, the rise in childlessness and the trend to smaller families means the average British couple of the next decade will have 1.74 children, compared with just over two 20 years ago. The figure is the lowest since records began and, although it means the population is still growing by 0.3 per cent a year, economists say it raises profound concerns for the future.

Statistics show that the population of Scotland is already in decline and there are predictions that the rest of the British Isles could go the same way.

Later this week, a report by the Government's Actuary Department (GAD) will paint a number of scenarios that will highlight just how devastating these trends could be. Depending on migration flows and life expectancy rates, the UK population could peak in 2040, an event that would be damaging both symbolically and economically.

But, even if the population doesn't decline as the prophets of doom predict, few suggest it will grow anything like enough to combat the problems associated with an ageing population.

The last GAD report concluded ominously: 'At present, there are 4.1 people aged 16 to 64 in the UK for every person aged 65 and over. This elderly support ratio is likely to fall to between 2.3 and 2.6 by the middle of the century.'

As for the plan to charge migrants £500 for a work permit, I am once again disgusted.
The rational is that migrants get the economic benefits of working in this country.

Well, here's a list of just a few of the benefits this country gets from me:

1. I provide a skill that is in desperately short supply (social work.) I do this for too little pay and a huge amount of stress. I thus support this country in spite of its failure to adequately address the crisis in social care.

2. I pay taxes to the government for support of all its programs.

3. Other than the NHS--for which I pay significant taxes--I am prohibited from reaping any government benefit for five full years, no matter how much I pay in tax.

4. I spend my money in Britain, thus supporting the British economy. In fact, I make a concerted effort to buy British goods, unlike many native Brits. While Sainsbury's seems determined to promote the idea that all produce is from Kenya, Zambia, or France, I go out of my way to buy British produce including from farm stores.

5. I am better behaved than a significant number of native Brits. I do not litter, speed, talk loudly on my mobile phone in public places and public libraries, or act rudely to my neighbors or strangers or friends.

6. I encourage tourism to this country through the visits of my friends and family. This leads to more money spent here. In a time of significant decline in British tourism this is no small thing.

7. I recycle, drive a fuel efficient car, and use resources wisely and responsibly.

8. I may yet provide one of those desperately needed children.

9. I've adopted two homeless cats.

10. I do volunteer work for the betterment of this country, a country where I was not born.

I think that's worth far more than £500.

Not to mention--but I will--all the money the government has already got or will get out of me to transfer things here.
Like £39 to get my social work qualification recognised.
Or £41 to transfer my driving liscence.
Or whatever fee to take my driving test again though I've been safely driving for twenty years.
And a whole load of others, but frankly I'm too fed up to type any more.

I'm disgusted with the whole lot of them.

Only One?

How many people have we got locked up without charge, trial by jury, or any of that democratic stuff that Blair is always crowing on about - can't find any info but may be looking in the wrong place. I think all of the Irish prisoners have been released but there was some mention of a few dozen prisoners of North African extraction some weeks ago ...

Behave Maria......You know that anyone that manages to find their way to England is (near as damn it) hear to stay.

You have no way of knowing anything about them or their previous lives.....you have no way of knowing if they were a decent hardworking individual in their native country or a mass-murderer.

Its the 'No documents and a story' syndrome......There is no way of knowing who is genuine and who is not.

So i say YES, the torturers have just as much chance of landing in Dover as the tortured.

today in the 'Evening Standard'

By Richard Edwards:


'A report reveals today that families of asylum seekers recieve on average £16,000 a year in benefits.
Immigration Minister Beverley Hughes publishes the figures as part of the home affairs select committee study of plans to strip failed asylum seekers of benefits if they refuse to leave the country.
The £ 16,000 figure takes into account cash benefits and housing given to the average asylum seeking couple with two children 'but does not include extra burden on NHS and schools'.The total cost to the tax payer is estimated at almost 2 billon a year.
The report said legislation proposed in the asylum and immigration bill,to take children into care would act as an incentive for families to disapear and leave their children in the care of local authorities at public expence.
it takes teachers and NHS nurses five years to achieve £16,000 a year take home pay.'

Whereas this was a snip.

The war in Iraq

Says it all really ...

Which papers DO you approve of Alberr.

In my time i've quoted most of the national press,and you seem to deride all of it.

Can you give me your recommendation,about what paper/s to quote from.

Compared to 2 billion EVERY year......yes,is is a snip.


Didn't see much 'government bias' in that report....how about you a Alberr.

Fair point!

No! I don't read any of them anymore. I led a peripedectic life and spent hours on trains and buses reading the Financial Times/Guardian/Economist/EveningStandard(when at home in London), Morning Star, Observer, Workers Press and Time magazine among others. I haven't purchased a paper at all in the last twenty years. I prefer books and the Web. If there is news that interests me, a particular dispute or new laws or a particular issue like the Iraq war then I start by searching the BBC website before trawling through the US/UK/European headlines until I find a lead. That way I pick up all the peripheral and independent comments as well as the staid and predictable UK Media bits.

The Guardian ratted out one of their journalists and the poor sod was victimised by the Government and the Police as a result. I never bought it again after that.
I did the quick crossword in the Evening Standard on the Tube, the limit of my intellectual ability, but disagreed with the political bias and the personal attacks they conducted on friends of mine in the Labour Party. So I binned that very early on. It was the most anti working class paper I read. (I've never read the Daily Mail and stopped reading the Sun when Rupert Murdoch turned it into a porn for workers shite rag)

We have a 'free' press in this country but all the nationals sing the same hymn ... not my hymn.

Missed that bit in your post but have now read the article again ...

Drawing from my vast knowledge of journo speak I reckon this report is just a re-hash of a government press release and it was published entirely without question or criticism, a very good example of what I was referring to earlier ...

STOP EVERYTHING !!!

This weeks Chart is in : [who's exelled themselves in the past 7 days?]


1. (2) Alberr
2. (-) Tallship
3. (4) Martyn
4. (-) Maria
5. (-) Carol

I would suggest that 2 billion a year investing in the potential to increase the number of taxpayers who will ultimately help to improve the social and financial structure of the UK is a price worth paying.

Whereas the 90 million spent in 11 days and the countless millions we'll be shelling out for the next god knows how many decades seems to me to be a shameful waste of money.
The only beneficiaries being oil companies and the shareholders of Halliburton.

How in heavens name did I get bumped down to 3?
I've been far more vitriolic and loony than Alberr and having Tallship above me at number two is downright insulting.

...aaah...I get it.

Very clever KLF.

If putting one of the most charming, gentle, least vitriolic members in at 2 was not a ruse to wind me up then I can only assume Tallship PM'd you, pointing out a few home truths and you've got the hump.

Hi Martyn.

I replied to you on the 'war in Iraq' thread.


One of my MANY mistakes.

I hope Maria won't be to angry with me.

I'm soooo offended klf. I hardly replied to you politically at all this week, because there just is nothing to say. I usually can't follow your reasoning, so I have given up and I just make jokes about your list.

As far as the topic of this thread--I'm not British so I don't have much to say about Labour, old or new. And Bush is just beyond redemption, and I have run out of anything original to say about him.

Carol, is that anything like Shawshank? There was a sort of justice in there somewhere ...

Lots of things happened in The Shawshank Redemption, Alberr, but I am sure no one here wants to do them with Bush. Wouldn't mind with Tim Robbins, though.

But you were soooo offended when i left you out last week. Carol.

meanwhile,back to New labour-new nazis.....

Et tu Brute!

No I didn't send a PM but I almost did, to appologise. I really shouldn't post when I've had a few and the klf was correct in saying that personal remarks should not be made, I've said the same thing myself before now.

That said, if one is going debate at a serious level good communication skills are a prerequisite to avoid misunderstandings and present an argument in a clear and succinct manner.

I'll try not to wind you up in future klf but you're such an easy target and I'm a bugger after a couple of beers.

That's too.

That's

There is a famous quote made by...(tell me someone, it's embarrassing not knowing this)...which asserts that truth is always the first victim of war.

My belief is that Blair, Campbell, Reid, Straw, Hoon and the rest all knew that the liklihood that a WOMD could be deployed by Saddam within 45 mins was pretty unlikely but since they were not getting a categorical and credible denial of such from the spooks they decided to run with it.
So they weren't actually lying.

But why should we believe them now any more than before the first bomber took off or the first squaddie planted a boot print on the sand outside Basra?

GWB was going to war and Blair for reasons known only to himself was going too.

The millions who took to the streets, people from diverse political and ideological backgrounds, to protest and demand that we didn't go to war were ignored and dismissed. We could all basically go fuck ourselves.

After more than a year, much of that time spent searching with absolutely no hinderance from Baath party Iraquis, no weapons have come to light. Two senior US weapons inspectors, one of whom could hardly be described as a bleeding heart liberal, have said that Saddam probably didn't have any and hadn't for ten years or more.

Blair knew as well as GWB that the threat to our shores and our way of life from Saddam Hussein was minimal. Negligable to the point of being invisible. Yet we were told war was the only answer.
A war against whom? A former CIA agent armed and equiped by succesive US, UK and other western anti communist democracies. A war against a country so financially bollocksed that its children and its sick died in their thousands for years through lack of good food and medical care.

The first highly detailed, authoritative report on the state of Iraq proved to be a 10 year old thesis written by a student. "Someone" at number ten claimed that it was no such thing. It was a government report gleaned from intelligence gathered by skilled US and UK opereratives.
"Someone" at number ten lied and after the author was found and pointed out that indeed it was his work which was by now completely and utterly out of date, "someone else" at number ten had to admit that it wasn't what they'd said it was.
But nobody lied.

There's a kind of pattern emerging isn't there?
I see it like this. Politicians can say anything at all. Absolutely anything and add that they know this or that because they have seen a dossier, or an MI6 report or they are assured that to the best of their knowledge the reports indicate etc etc...
Based on this they take us to war and we pay financially and politically for decades.
Journalists get three words wrong in an unscripted early morning report and according to the government they are therefore responsible for the destruction of the entire fabric of society.

With the result that Tory Blair now finds himself in the position of "winning the argument" on university fees, and being exonerated over the Kelly affair. It's quite simply nothing short of appalling.
As appalling in fact as Greg Dyke resigning.
The heads are rolling but they are the wrong heads.

And the Hutton report is not a whitewash and the moon is made of Wensleydale.

week 16 in the preperation of the Hutton report.

The letters page of today's Gaurdian is comparing it to the original equiery after Bloody Sunday, which cleared everyone in the army and govt and took 25 years 'till the other side got in and had it all done again properly...

I doubt that there has ever been a judicial enquiry into the behaviour of a UK government and it's representatives that hasn't absolutely vindicated the people involved. They have all been whitewashes. High court judges believe in "The defence of the Realm" and always act accordingly. I remember the whitewash that came out of the enquiry into the "Profumo affair". Where the Tory Minister of Defence, who had a sexual appetite for young women, was sharing one of a pair of youthful prostitutes, Christine Keeler, with a Soviet military attache. (A man, Dr Stephen Ward, "committed suicide" during that fiasco as well!)

Take heart! Blair is trying to take the world with him before he goes. That not very respected person, William Hague, accurately referred to Blair's, Campbell's and the Sun's apparent success against the BBC as a Pyrhic victory. It is. Blair is holding on by the skin of his teeth. Even the most cowardly sycophants in the Parliamentary Labour Party are now looking over their shoulders and wondering if they will lose their seat at the next General Election while Tony remains leader. What the spin doctors are desperately investigating is how to drop Tony without admitting that the war was unjust, immoral and illegal.


Just think, when has a workforce ever walked out to publicly demonstrate solidarity with their bosses ...

If what is written here is true (I didn't see or hear the comment and it seems the media were very quiet about it) then perhaps Blunkett is unfit for public office let alone the custody of "any fellow human being".
For a home secretary to suggest that the death of a prisoner whilst in custody might be something to be celebrated is disgraceful. For him to do so publicly should lead to a resignation, I would have thought.
What kind of person would actually want to celebrate the death of another?
And I do understand the difference between this and not being terribly upset or sorry that someone had died.

It's also clear from the attitude of both these men that having committed a crime and having been sentenced to a period of punishment such as being deprived of your liberty for a certain length of time, your suffering at the hands of vindictive sadistic prison officers or being raped in the shower block are simply things you've brought on yourself, so tough shit. Once you're "off the streets" they couldn't give a toss what happens to you.
Until of course the day after you are released and decide, quite understandably in my opinion, to make society pay for what it has just inflicted on you. Or at the very least, what it failed to protect you from.




Contact:
Mark Leech
Editor: prisontoday.com
MLA Press
PO BOX 116
Manchester M9 6WS
Tel: 0845 0660011
Fax: 0845 0660022
editor@prisontoday.com
http://www.prisontoday.com/

[QUOTE=Martyn,Feb 1 2004, 09:26 AM]If what is written here is true (I didn't see or hear the comment and it seems the media were very quiet about it) then perhaps Blunkett is unfit for public office let alone the custody of "any fellow human being".
For a home secretary to suggest that the death of a prisoner whilst in custody might be something to be celebrated is disgraceful. For him to do so publicly should lead to a resignation, I would have thought.
What kind of person would actually want to celebrate the death of another?
And I do understand the difference between this and not being terribly upset or sorry that someone had died.

It's also clear from the attitude of both these men that having committed a crime and having been sentenced to a period of punishment such as being deprived of your liberty for a certain length of time, your suffering at the hands of vindictive sadistic prison officers or being raped in the shower block are simply things you've brought on yourself, so tough shit. Once you're "off the streets" they couldn't give a toss what happens to you.
Until of course the day after you are released and decide, quite understandably in my opinion, to make society pay for what it has just inflicted on you. Or at the very least, what it failed to protect you from.


[QUOTE]Blunkett and Narey are not " fit to be responsible for the custody of any fellow human being" Sir David Ramsbotham, former Chief Inspector of Prisons

prisontoday.com The Web's first online newspaper devoted to UK Prisons

Home Secretary and Prisons Chief 'Not Fit To Be In Charge' After Shipman Suicide.

Former Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, has slammed both Home Secretary David Blunkett and the Commissioner for Correctional Services Martin Narey, over the death of Dr Harold Shipman.

In a passionate article on prison suicides published on prisontoday.com, the webs first daily online newspaper devoted to UK prisons [launched today Monday 2.2.2004], Sir David takes the Prison Service to task over its failure to reduce prison suicides, and for a lack of leadership from the top of the Service itself.

Sir David writes:
"The rhetoric and the bureaucracy [on suicides] have been backed up by material improvements such as the conversion of a number of 'safe' cells, in which ligature points have been eliminated, and separate rooms to which anyone at risk can be moved to be with a Listener.

"What is still missing however is the consistent and unremitting personal direction from the top that the chain of command will be held responsible and accountable for every incident of suicide and self-harm - that is not the same thing as merely issuing written instructions."

Sir David rebukes the Home Secretary for suggesting the death of Dr Shipman was cause for opening a bottle of champagne, and Martin Narey for his support of what the Home Secretary had said:

Sir David writes:

"I deplore both David Blunkett's remarks and Martin Narey's understanding"

"The duty of the Prison Service, and everyone connected with it - including the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of Correctional Services - is to ensure that every prisoner is safe.

"No one has the right to decide who may be kept safe and who may not; the death penalty has been suspended not only in this country but in Europe.

"No one who rejoices - or says that they understand why someone rejoices - at the death of someone for whose safety they are responsible, is fit to be responsible for the custody of any fellow human being."

Mark Leech, editor of prisontoday.com said:

"Like David Ramsbotham I was absolutely disgusted with remarks of David Blunkett; its hard to imagine how Dr Shipman's family felt when they heard it - they are victims too in all of this let's not forget.

"Blunkett sometimes opens his mouth and his brain falls out, that's par for the course with politicians who sometimes let their guard slip; what I found more disgraceful however was the support for his view from Martin Narey.

"It is disgraceful remarks like this from the top that explain why the so-called 'drive' to reduce prison suicides has largely failed - in April 2001 the Prison Service embarked on a three year, £21m, 'proactive project' to cut prison suicides, during which deaths in custody have not fallen but instead risen to record levels - and after remarks like this, I'm not surprised."


Notes: prisontoday.com is the first online daily newspaper for UK Prisons. It is published by MLA Press, who also publish The Prisons Handbook, the definitive 700 page annual guide to the penal system of England and Wales; ConVerse monthly prison news, and the quarterly Prisoners' Pocket Directory.

The article by Sir David Ramsbotham will appear on prisontoday.com on 2.2.2004. [/QUOTE]

Contact:
Mark Leech
Editor: prisontoday.com
MLA Press
PO BOX 116
Manchester M9 6WS
Tel: 0845 0660011
Fax: 0845 0660022
editor@prisontoday.com
[URL=http://www.prisontoday.com/]http://www.prisontoday.com/[/U




Sorry Martyn......But i find your second paragraph just as offencive as anything Blunkett is supposed to have said.

For what reason?

Is it that you find offensive my understanding of, as distinct from me condoning in any way, the actions of once mildly disturbed but now deeply damaged young men leaving prison and going on to commit yet more crimes, some of which may possibly prove to be violent and more destructive to our communities?

Please elaborate.

'as distinct from me condoning in any way'

'quite understandable in my opinion'



I understand your arguments Martyn......But with you,it's always the authorities and the 'establishment' that are 100% to blame for the action of individuals.


Yes, institutions may adversely contribute to the individuals action's.....but the 'individual' must take some(if not ultimate) responsability for his or her actions.

Where do I say some thieving vandalising gob shite doesn't deserve his six months in chokey?

Where?

What I AM saying is that whilst in prison being deprived of his nights out with the lads, his nights in shagging his girlfriend and his days down the betting office or round his mates doing some speed or some weed, he shouldn't be having the shit kicked out of him by a screw or another prisoner and he should be getting some kind of therapy to A) help him with his tendancy toward a way of life dominated by offending and B ) some kind of assistance toward obtaining an education which as a child or youth he squandered in favour of a thrill a minute existance as a "gangster".



How is it that holding politically right of center views seems to render one incapable of recognising the distinction between having an understanding of why a person or group might do something but not actually agreeing with or supporting what they do?

Marytn.

Totally agree with you about A & B.....The rest of your post is conjecture.

I can see full well that there are mitigating curcumstances to everyones behaviour.