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.