More thoughts on the changes to the murder laws

There has been varying discussions regarding the changes to the murder laws in England and Wales. Most spout the familiar line and regurgitate the usual reactionary myths about domestic violence. But to reiterate, the reason more men than women get done for domestic violence is that the vast bulk of domestic violence is by men against women.

As I understand the criminal law is based on the assumption that a person has free will  in deciding what actions they take: they may decide to break the speed limit, sell cocaine or kill their wife. This is the only basis on which someone can be justifiably be punished for something.

But what if the person’s will has been deliberately broken through years of violence, fear and oppression? That is what some men do to their women partners. Is it just to punish a women who kills such an oppressor to the same extent as someone who kills in cold blood? The criminal law must reflect the psychological realities if it is to represent justice at all.

Generally, what is missing from these proposals on murder to re-examining the mandatory life sentence for murder. I do think there has to be more discretion and flexibility when it comes to murder verdicts.

 

McDonnell speaks….

In today’s Guardian:

There just can’t be another coronation for the leader of the party. Our members and the electorate just wouldn’t put up with another one. I am up for a leadership election at any time but it has to be about beliefs, about a political analysis of the world and about the political solutions we can promote to regain control over the destiny of our planet

Further article in Guardian.

Decision time for the Left

Harriet Harman is denying that 10 junior ministers are plotting Machiavellian like to depose of Gordon Brown. But Harman maintains that she still has loyalty in him.

Again, how remote from reality are these people with their heads stuck in concrete existing in this Westminster bubble.

And now we have the “dream ticket” of Miliband/Johnson being touted. Dream ticket? More like nightmare. Change of leadership won’t change the direction of NL with its determination to follow the dream ticket of neo-liberalism.

So what of the Left? There has been a letter circulated for a possible challenge by John McDonnell MP. Indeed there is much I agree with in the letter regarding the undemocratic way that led to Brown’s coronation along with no political debate. It was like some royal succession.

And to further advance democracy in relation to leadership challenges then Calder Valley’s resolution to LP conference seeks to reduce the current margin from 12.5% to 7%. Obviously LP members who are interested in genuine, democratic and open debate should support this resolution.

And the Left should be concentrating on the 2 up and coming events. LP conference and Convention of the Left. Engaging with people inside and outside the LP is vital. It will be fascinating to see how Brown et al will control the process of LP conference and how stage managed with its choreographed speeches will it be. Will there be flickers of dissent, plotting?

There are wider implications and questions we need to ask ourselves. How will the Left define itself in the coming months? Regarding the potential challenge by McDonnell (he hasn’t denied it) I think we need more discussion on the Left about this (I don’t think this counterposes support for John McD.). My own opinion, tactically, we need to involve the whole of the Left in this decision making. We still have time for a debate and that too will build up our politics and develop our strategies.

If McDonnell stands I will support him. Our objective, like the previous John4Leader campaign, is to highlight, and to challenge the NL establishment along with their moribund right-wing dead policies. We also have to show that there is a left alternative to NL. We have a chance to vocalise our opposition and to put forward a platform that is against neo-liberalism.

As they say, carpe diem…Because this is possibly the Left’s last best chance before a Tory avalanche.

NB: A Blairite speaks…………

Car today planet tomorrow

All hail the motor car and worship it for its gas guzzling unecologically soundness.

According to the Panorama programme tonight around 38% think the government is to blame for the increase in fuel prices.

Interesting that it was centred around the emphasis on the motor car yet alternatives were not vocalised except the clip from the green economist who hasn’t owned a car for 25 years and uses public transport. It included reducing carbon emissions by focusing on electric cars but little about cycling or better resourced public transport. And the mentioning that NL has pledged to reduce the UK’s carbon emissions by 26% over the next 12 years.

The reporter also went to the Shetland Islands and discussed the crippling fuel costs on the inhabitants. Many are farmers, crofters, yet if they have been doing this for generations then how did their ancestors fair without a 4×4? There was also a car being developed that is based on hydrogen produced by wind power but that’s in its infancy.

NL has reneged on its commitment to green taxation. “Hard working families” are taxed heavily for the pittance that having an ordinary job yields. Meanwhile the better off are allowed to burn the planet with long haul holidays, gas guzzlers etc etc.

What about a different society that does not rely on continually exploding cheap to produce things for profit? Yes you would not have a car and you would not be flying off to faraway places for your jollies. You would not have lots of pre-packaged food. Furniture would be expected to last as opposed to be chucked out to rot away into methane on a landfill site.

But you would only work 2 days a week and have 10 weeks holiday a year. It is only the needs of capitalism that mean that people slave their guts out to buy crap. And lets not forget, the oil will run out one day…….

And for the car drivers of London and big cities…use a bike or bus.

Restraint of children in prison held to be unlawful….

 I have written about physical restraint techniques used on children before. The press release from Inquest sums things up well.

PRESS RELEASE

For immediate release 28 JULY 2008

 

RESTRAINT OF CHILDREN IN PRISON HELD TO BE UNLAWFUL

The Court of Appeal has today held that the rules currently in force allowing children in custody to be restrained for reasons of “good order and discipline” are unlawful and must be quashed.  The challenge was made in relation to amendments to the Secure Training Centre Rules[1] which were brought into force in July 2007. 

The concern about the Rules stemmed in part from the deaths of Gareth Myatt – who died whilst being restrained by staff at Rainsbrook STC – and Adam Rickwood – who hanged himself in Hassockfield STC – after having been restrained.  These cases raised concern about the legality of the use of force in STCs and resulted in the amendments being made back in July 2007. There was widespread concern at the time that the amendments were brought in to greatly widen the circumstances in which children could be restrained, and to legalise conduct by officers which up to that date had been prohibited.

In a test case funded by the Legal Services Commission (LSC) it was submitted on behalf of the claimant – a child who had been held in a STC – that the rules had been introduced without proper consultation, without conducting a race equality impact assessment, and that they breached articles 3 & 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights[2].  The case was supported by the Children’s Commissioner and a wide-ranging coalition of other organisations, including the NSPCC, INQUEST and the Children’s Rights Alliance.  

In a decision made earlier this year the Administrative Court found that the amendments were introduced unlawfully due to the failure to properly consult and to carry out a race equality assessment but refused to quash the Rules. Today the Court of Appeal confirmed that the Rules should be quashed, not only due to the failure to consult but also because the changes breached articles 3 and 8.

In a highly critical judgment given on behalf of the Court, Lord Justice Buxton stated that Secretary of State had “surprisingly” not appreciated that the Rules did change the policy concerning the use of restraint quite significantly.  This in turn led to a series of failings in relation to the appropriate consultations that should have taken place.  He paints a picture of a youth custody system that is inconsistent and incoherent, with worrying difference of opinion between key players:

“…there is a history in the life of STCs of disobedience to legal and contractual requirements.  We have seen how the Amendment Rules were introduced to legitimate practices that up to then were illegal and in breach of the operators’ contracts.  

And Hassockfield STC is run by, and the Secretary of State relies on the evidence of, a man who before the Rickwood inquest, and in these proceedings, sought, apparently unchecked by the Secretary of State, to argue that his contractual obligations were not binding.”  [para 74]

The finding that the Rule authorising the use of force breached article 3 flowed directly from the chaotic administration identified by the judge.

Mark Scott, a partner at Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, acted for the child who brought the challenge as well as the families of Gareth Myatt and Adam Rickwood.  He commented:“The Court has identified very clearly the dangers posed by the use of physical force to restrain children and the judgment is extremely critical of how the authorities have responded to this problem.  It is difficult to understand how such a haphazard approach can be taken to the use of potentially lethal force against young people in the care of the state.  Whilst my client is extremely pleased with the decision in his case, it is tragic that children have already died during or following the use of restraint in STCs.”

Deborah Coles, Co-Director of INQUEST, said:

“This judgment is further condemnation of the failure of the state and privately-run companies to protect vulnerable children in the custody and care of the state, the result of which has been death, injury and psychological damage. We have heard nothing since the deaths of Adam Rickwood and Gareth Myatt that has convinced us that those with responsibility have properly heeded what has been exposed and that necessary and appropriate changes have or will now be made to safeguard children. Instead what has emerged is complacency and a reliance on a restraint review conducted behind closed doors that the government has refused to disclose in advance of its response, thus preventing consultation and debate; the very things criticised by this judgment.

INQUEST remains convinced that the only way to prevent the suffering of children in custody and to ensure that more children do not die or are not injured is to conduct a holistic, independent inquiry in public into the way we treat children in conflict with the law with the proper involvement of families, children and those working within the system. That the government continues to resist such an inquiry, whose motivation would be protecting the human rights of children, is shameful.”

[1] 1. STCs hold young persons in custody between the ages of 12 and 17. There are four STCs in the country.

[2] 2. Article 3 prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment and article 8 protects the right to a private and family  life.

 

“Nagging missus” defence to go

Justice minister, Maria Eagle has announced changes to laws around murder. One of these reforms means that men can’t argue provocation as a defence when accused of killing their wives. About bloody time!

The sexist double standards and misogyny inherent within the criminal justice system has allowed men to get away with murder and women like Kiranjit Ahluwalia, Sara Thornton and Emma Humphreys were sentenced to life having experienced ongoing systematic violence.

I was involved in the campaigns to release these women, part of that was to highlight the sexist double standards prevalent in the treatment of women over domestic violence. Organisations like Southall Black Sisters led these campaigns, as Cath Elliott says in her article, along with Women’s Aid.

Domestic violence generally, and not just where there is a death, still destroys womens’ lives on a vast scale. In a time of punative rhetoric about law and order and out of control teenagers a form of violence that dwarfs gangsterism gets hardly anyone hot under the collar: indeed it is probably a safe bet that most of the hang’em and flog’em brigade will come over all sympathic to the rights of the indivdual man in the dock when it comes to talking about these proposals.

The Dark Knight: whatta Joker…..

Well, after much anticipation and suspense, Heath’s Ledger’s Joker was less Jack Nicholson’s more Clockwork Orange.  It is kinda tragic and sad that not long after the film was completed Ledger died. But the celluloid screen holds an indelible memory of his very impressive last role. Ledger now belongs to that group, actors dying young whether fast and furious a la James Dean style or not, others include River Phoenix and Brandon Lee.

Gotham City is awash with crime organised by the various mob syndicates. Batman, our anti-hero, isn’t doing is usual clean up of the baddies and seems to be taking a break. Along comes good true hero, Harvey Dent, the young idealistic DA, who wants to bring mobsters to book and shrugs off the threats on his own life. Then along comes a spate of bank robberies committed by men wearing joker masks. Step forward, The Joker, all smeared make-up, menace and gallows murderous humour, who really wants to be the leader of the bad guys but later undermines the mobsters as he believes Gotham deserves a “better class of criminal”. It’s not about the money for the Joker, it’s about causing chaos. He also wants to take on Batman who he believes is as much as a ”freak” as he is. Two sides of the same coin.

The plot now revolves around indiscriminate murder, mayhem and hideous jokery committed by the clown (“I believe that what doesn’t kill you makes you stranger.”).  Along with Batman/Bruce Wayne’s unfinished business between his former love, Rachel, who now is with Harvey. The frisson still exists between them but Rachel knows that any relationship with Bruce will be crowded cos of his commitment to Batman.

Nolan creates a noirish, brooding and dark film. The script becomes plodding, 1-dimensional and dense in many places. I would say it is overlong. But I was also longing for the Joker every time he wasn’t on screen. The frenetic, dynamic, nihilistic and anarchic Joker whose energy kinda speeds up the proceedings. There’s no back story, all we know is that this scruffy, grungy, and twitchy individual with his exaggerated mannerisms had a Larkinesque f*cked up violent childhood.  More edge and foreboding brought to the story. Circumstances and experiences from the past seemed to shape the Joker.

The length of the film reflects a comic book style with the moral conundrums and ambiguities. Can someone incorruptible become corruptible? Is there a difference between the Joker and Batman? The Joker describes himself to Harvey Dent as nothing more than a dog chasing cars and when he catches up with one he doesn’t know what to do. He doesn’t have plans (it’s Gotham City’s establishment that have the plans) or strategy just unrelenting chaos, anarchy and twisted humour.

It was Heath Ledger’s Joker that made The Dark Knight with his twisted interpretation of the world and text book psychopathy that embodies a lack of concern for human life (sounds like a pro-war former prime minister!) whilst Christian Bale’s Batman (why the deep deep voice when he is Batman? Off putting and unnecessary) is worthy who has trusty reliable people around him like Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) and Alfred the butler (Michael Caine) unlike the lonesome Joker (with his anonymous gang) who takes on high techno arsenal of Batman. Homages and nods to James Bond are apparent such as  Lucius Fox acting like “Q” when explaining the latest gadgets and gismos to Bruce. Or when the Joker attacks Batman Rosa Klebb style with a knife that juts out of his shoe.

I liked the film and do admire the work of Nolan especially his previous excellent Memento. We don’t get to see as much as Maggie Gyllenhaal’s Rachel as a character created in her own right as a opposed to a love interest between two men!

Aaron Eckhart is much much better later on in the film (though he has never really surpassed his exemplary acting in the film, In the Company of Men). And Gary Oldman as the moral dutiful cop, Lt Gordon.

But it’s Heath Ledger’s crafted scary clown with his wonderful cackle that makes this second instalment. What a note to end on.

Oh, and btw: there were CCTV cameras in the Odeon I went to….the surveillance society.

For a taster of the film …see below trailer.

Just who does John Hutton thinks he is..?

NL is in meltdown. But hey….. the line being peddled is “unite” behind Labour and you’ve gotta have faith in those policies. The image that comes to mind is head. Firmly in sand.

The unions are putting forward 100 demands for workers’ rights at the National Policy Forum. But what concerns me is that these demands are nothing more than a shopping list that lack any core conviction. One missing key ingredient from these demands is what kind of society do we want and how it will be resourced….

But one of the demands is sacking John Hutton. John Hutton the man who thinks we should celebrate the rich and shaft the organised working class. And yesterday Paul Kenny (GMB) argued that there should be a confidence ballot on Gordon Brown’s leadership to “clear the air”. Poor John, he probably choked on his bile when he heard that as he snapped back:

“Who are the unions to say this today?”

Who indeed John… I mean, the unions only donate around 90% of the funding to keep Labour afloat. And as John is soooo worshipping of the rich and corporate capitalism, can you imagine him saying to the bosses “listen up! society is going to be organised for the benefit of everyone, not just to make you even richer.”

We need an account of how the LP is going to tackle the huge environmental issues we face, how to deal with housing and debt and internationally how to create a more equitable and sustainable way of doing things. The attitude to war is simple: just say no.

New Labour: wipe out 2010..?!

The Lady Bracknell quote comes to mind when thinking about NL and losing by-elections…. misfortune and carelessness. Though incompetence and selling-out to the corporate monster is much more apt in describing the disaster that is becoming NL.

And now they stagger to another catastrophe in Glasgow East where NL sees its majority of over 13,000 dissolve instantly. With an election looming in 18mths time are we looking at total wipe-out?

Even if there’s a palace coup, with much Machiavellian plotting, spinning, sound-bites, stirring and eventual deposing of Brown. Who they gonna replace him with? One of the Miliband bros?  Wunderkind James Purnell? Indeed, clowns to the left, jokers to the right….

With no attempt to reverse the policies of NL, then they will certainly lose the next election. NL as an ideology running ever rapidly out of steam dragging its sorry arse into the next election. Wipe-out surely beckons?

Brown/Blair have trampled and stamped on left social democracy. Created a remote government from the electorate. Massive majorities squandered in favour of war mongering and bigging up the economic boom that has turned in a sour credit crunch. Food prices up, below inflation pay rises, and a precarious housing market but the priorities for NL are shafting its core voters, whether it’s 10p tax band or working for your dole or plundering peoples’ pay and pensions.

But surely NL is also looking at the wider picture and longer term. What is NL turning into? Or to put it another way, what does it want to transform into? I think they know the game is up and are dragging their feet, whiling away the hours until the next election.

At the moment, NL gets most of its cash from the unions and boy, do they wish they could get rid of that link to the organised working class and become a similar party to  Berlusconi’s….in my humble opinion.

DWP loses disability discrimination case

A registered blind woman has successfully sued the DWP for disability discrimination and has been awarded £2,500. Her benefit, income support, had been withdrawn following an anonymous complaint against her to the department. The DWP failed to send her documents in accessible forms when she appealed.

Under the DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) it requires service providers to make “reasonable adjustments” to their services so as to provide as close a service as possible to that provided to other members of the public.

County Court District Judge Mort said: “Members of the public other than the claimant would get letters and would be able to read those letters and act on them and decide whether or not they needed advice”.

The DWP was found to have failed to comply with its own code of practice and caused the claimant inconvenience, effort, discomfort, anxiety and loss of dignity.

Sheffield Law Centre supported the woman in bringing this case and they argue: It is astonishing that the government department responsible for introducing the DDA should fail so comprehensively to apply the DDA. Providing access to people with disabilities takes many different forms and this case shows that government departments cannot ignore people’s rights and hinder access to justice”.