Human rights lawyers - Old Billy might have been right

This particular "human rights lawyer" is the lowest sort of humanity - fitting up others so he can profit from the taxpayer:

Phil Shiner, from Public Interest Lawyers, wrote a letter confessing some of his actions to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal over his firm’s alleged involvement in false claims being made against British troops by Iraqis.

He wrote that "he accepts" he will now face being struck off. Shiner admits he paid a tout more than £25,000 in referral fees to find clients and admits covering his tracks by doctoring evidence.

Public Interest Lawyers had brought forward nearly 200 compensation claims from Iraqis and more than 1,100 cases of alleged wrongdoing and killings by British military personnel.

He brought thousands of allegations of historic abuse against British troops in Iraq that forced the Government to set up the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) that has pursued criminal investigations against war veterans. Almost all of those claims are now known to be unfounded.

Ordinary tommies had their lives ruined by this man so he could make millions from Legal Aid. What disturbs me most is that Shiner wasn't just a crooked lawyer but a crooked lawyer celebrated as some sort of hero by his fellow lawyers. A reminder that this is a profession without any concept of ethics in its marketing and filled with people ready to patronise the rest of us regular folk. At times Old Billy was definitely right.

....

Crime is the criminal's fault - why the left should listen more to what the right says

****

I guess we need to start at the beginning with crime. With where the blame lies. With the criminal.

Too often we are enjoined to find excuses – explanations in society – for crime. Psychologists tell us to look into the criminals upbringing, sociologists point to the environment in which the offender has lived, anthropologists mutter about peer pressure and some economists point the finger at the perverse incentives that come from inequality or financial failure.

Is all this wrong? Or should we seek a simpler explanation, one rooted in the idea of personal responsibility – crime is the fault of the criminal. Nobody makes the burglar burgle, the robber rob or the rapist rape. They do it themselves by their own choice and their upbringing, the urgings of peers or the porn movie they’ve just watched are of no consequence in all this – those things did not make the criminal a criminal. I know this to be true because other people have a similar deprived (or depraved) upbringing and do not burgle, others resist the lure of the gang and plenty watch porn without becoming rapists.

This view of crime is most commonly associated – in every case but rape – with conservatives and, more particularly with the right of the conservative party. Here’s Michael Howard back in 2004:

As a society we are in danger of being overrun by values which eat away at people's respect for themselves, each other, their homes and their neighbourhood.

Most damaging of all has been the dramatic decline in personal responsibility.

Many people now believe that they are no longer wholly responsible for their actions.

It's someone else's, or something else's fault - the environment, society, the Government.

In the case of rape Howard and the conservative right are joined – for this crime only it seems at times – by the left, something that is a cause for celebration since it shows that with the right conditions, these people can be persuaded that criminality is a matter of personal choice not an inevitable consequence of poverty, inequality or some other of society’s ailments. The individual – and how refreshing it is that some on the left are willing to acknowledge choice – does not have to commit crime, there is no inevitability.

So having got that clear – crime is always, without exception, the fault of the criminal – we should consider the more nuanced, even vexed, question that crime exists. That some circumstances put us at greater risk of being a victim and that there are things that we can do (or that others can do) to reduce this risk.

At the neighbourhood forums in our village, the police now attend (they call them “Partners & Communities Together” meetings, an especially annoying term) to listen to local concerns, update us on crime and provide advice. This advice, most commonly, takes the form of reminding us to lock doors, close windows and make other precautions against the criminal – we’re warned of “Hanoi” burglaries, told how easy it is to break the locks of plastic doors and reminded that garden sheds are also a target. All good stuff and welcome.

And when our sons and daughters are first going out in an evening, we worry about getting that late night call from the hospital. So we give good advice – don’t drink too much, stay together, don’t go off with strangers, make sure you have enough money to get home. We’ll sometimes tell our sons or daughters to avoid certain places – perhaps a particular pub or maybe a certain location – because we know they’re more dangerous.

All of this advice – not to mention the fretting and worrying – is intended to reduce the risk of being a victim. It doesn’t contradict the responsibility of the criminal for his or her crime – the burglary is still the fault of the burglar, the mugging is the fault of the mugger and the rape is the fault of the rapist.

But, however much we may wish it otherwise, there are burglars, there are robbers and there are rapists. So reducing our personal risk makes sense – reclaiming the night may be a desirable and laudable aim but until it is reclaimed that personal risk remains. So if going to a certain place increases that risk it is foolish to go there, if not securing our house increases that risk then we should secure our house and if staying in well lit, patrolled areas keeps us safe we should try to stay in those areas.

The same goes for wider social interventions – if reducing poverty (or aborting baby boys as has been observed) reduces the number of criminals that is good but not why we should try to reduce poverty. If fewer single parent families reduces crime that is also good but not why we should consider the social impact of single parenthood. And if better schools mean fewer crimes that is wonderful but not why we should want better schools.

Some people simply make the choice to be criminals – to steal, to assault, to kill, to rape. And they must not be allowed to use the Randy’s response:

"I'm depraved on account of I'm deprived"

Crime is the fault of the criminal. But that doesn’t mean we – as individuals and as a society – shouldn’t try to make things safer for the law abiding. And it certainly means we shouldn't act to make it less safe for people.

....

Who was it said booze was too cheap?

****

Not cheap enough for some, it seems:

Unregulated and potentially dangerous fake alcohol has been found for sale in Bradford, West Yorkshire Trading Standards has warned.

Senior trading standards officer David Lodge said they had seen an increase in the availability of bogus booze over the last 12 months – with some bottles containing traces of chemicals suggesting the alcohol has been through an industrial process.

You see the duty is high enough to make it worthwhile to risk criminal charges for dodging that duty - making and importing booze now falls into the same category as drug smuggling.

And, for this we have to thank the New Puritan, anti-alcohol idiots. When someone dies because of this bad booze, the blood will be on the hands of Alcohol Concern, the British Medical Association and others campaigning for booze to be more expensive.

...

"Brandy for the Parson, 'Baccy for the Clerk." - A budget for smugglers

Five and twenty ponies,
Trotting through the dark -
Brandy for the Parson, 'Baccy for the Clerk.
Them that asks no questions isn't told a lie -
Watch the wall my darling while the Gentlemen go by !

The decision of the Chancellor to raise duties on alcohol and tobacco is, yet again, a great gift to Britain’s smugglers. With each rise in duty, with each imposed cost increase, the damage to legitimate business – pubs, corner shops, small brewers and such all dying, strangled by an unholy alliance between the New Puritan, the treasury mandarin and the criminal.

Last year, Brian Lenihan, then Irish Finance Minister explained all this:

I have decided not to make any changes to excise on tobacco in this Budget because I believe the high price is now giving rise to massive cigarette smuggling. My responsibility as Minister for Finance is to protect the tax base. I have full confidence in the effectiveness of the current multi agency approach but early in the New Year I want to explore what further measures we may need to stem the illegal flow of cigarettes into this country.

But let’s explore a little further and remember that this isn’t just about cigarettes but, in the UK, concerns beer as well. Pete Brown, beer writer extraordinaire, wrote today about the problems with beer and observed that people have shifted from fine ale to cheap wine and cheaper spirits:

Liver disease is increasing because people are switching from beer to stronger drinks.  We already know this though, because this has been true of every major alcoholism epidemic in history.  In the gin epidemic of the eighteenth century, beer was part of the solution, not the problem, as the immortal cartoons by Hogarth show.  It should be seen as that today.

But why is this? And why has the big drop in alcohol consumption been in on-sales – drinking in the pub – rather than off-sales – drinking at home? Firstly, the big brewers have shifted their attention from the boozer to the fridge – their volume now comes from people buying boxes of 24 bottles rather than going to the pub and drinking six pints.

Secondly, the smoking ban – people have started drinking at home or at a pre-arranged ‘smoky-drinky’ in some friend’s garage.

And thirdly, the price of booze makes smuggling and illegal production worthwhile – and you’re not going to get those products in the pub. And, if you’re smuggling, it makes sense to concentrate on the strong stuff which means wine and spirits rather than beer. The shift from beer to stronger drinks isn’t simply down to choice, it’s down to an ever larger chunk of the market being in the hands of criminals.

Kipling’s poem rather romanticises the smuggler but the true picture isn’t like that at all. These smugglers are the same sort who’ve been in the illegal import game for years, they already operate and control a multi-billion pound business doing just that:

An online report published by the Home Office in 2006 has estimated the UK drugs market to be worth £4.645bn in 2003/4^[8], with a margin of error of +/- £1.154bn.

And, as we know, the people who run this smuggling business are prepared to use murder as a business tool.

So tell me New Puritans, would you prefer your daughter to get cigarettes from the corner shop or from the same man who sells cocaine, heroin and crack?

....

No, Cllr Slater, they did it because they're criminals

****

Damaging and stealing from 'heritage' buildings seems to be a problem and this extends to Bradford where:

In January, up to two tonnes of stone, valued at £6,000, was stolen from the Grade I listed Bolling Hall in Bradford. 

A crime that, at a guess, would require some lifting equipment and a decent sized truck. However, Cllr Val Slater, bleeding heart socialist somehow thinks this isn't organised and systematic crime:

“This report surprises me and dismays me and is a sad reflection of our current society. It reflects how some people are desperate for money in the current economic climate and the lengths they will go to.” 

Sorry Cllr Slater this is rubbish. These are criminals pure and simple. Criminals with a truck and lifting equipment not desperate, unemployed youth.

....

The Mafia would like to thank health campaigners and social activists for making them even richer!

Those who advocate prohibition, ‘denormalisation’ and the state punishment of selected lifestyle sins continue their campaigns:

• MPs are recommending two “drink free days”, minimum pricing and allowing licences to be removed on “health grounds”
• The BMA are urging the banning of smoking in cars and restrictions on smoking in the home
• Stella Creasy continues with her campaign to cap the APR that lenders can charge on loans
• Other ‘campaigners’ are calling for a ‘fat tax’ such as that introduced in Denmark
• And gambling is in their sights as another ‘lifestyle sin’

Setting aside whether a liberal society should indulge in these bans, controls and zealous regulation, there is a massive downside to such actions. A downside that ‘campaigners’ never mention. And it looks like this:

According to a new report by Italian anti-crime group SOS Impresa, as reported by Reuters, "Organised crime has tightened its grip on the Italian economy during the economic crisis, making the Mafia the country's biggest "bank" and squeezing the life out of thousands of small firms, according to a report on Tuesday."

The Italian Mafia has over 65 billion Euro in liquid assets.

You don’t get the connection with the nannying fussbuckets who want to dictate how you live your life? Let me explain – starting with:

The high tax-induced price of tobacco products in the UK has led to many smokers seeking alternative cheaper sources of cigarettes and handrolling tobacco (HRT), both legal (duty-free and crossborder shopping) and illegal (smuggling and bootlegging). The TMA estimates that in 2009 this non-UK duty paid consumption (NUKDP) accounted for 21% of the cigarettes and 58% of the HRT smoked in the UK.

And:

Seizures of contraband alcohol smuggled from France have surged to around three times their normal levels this summer, say officials. French customs officers in the Channel ports of Calais and Boulogne-sur-Mer confiscated 82,000 litres of illegal spirits in the past month.

Plus:

The use of loan sharks is increasing and going to "get worse", according to experts in the South West. The Bristol-based Illegal Money Lending Team claims it is already a serious problem across the region. Spokesman Alan Evans said they were "really concerned" and that with harder times ahead "this problem will get worse". Since its launch three years ago the team has recorded a 700% increase in referrals which are still growing.

I’m sure the picture is becoming clearer – the Mafia (or for that matter any other organised crime group) gets its money from a willingness to trade in things we’ve banned, to smuggle so as to avoid taxes and to fill gaps in the market created when honest providers are forced out by legal changes.

Organised crime is the biggest beneficiary from high tobacco taxes, from strict controls on drink and from restrictions on gambling or lending. And criminals, unlike legitimate businesses, don’t care if you get hurt – so we’ll get dangerous fake cigarettes, poisonous vodka and loan repayments enforced with a baseball bat rather than a court order.

So next time you think a ban or a new tax is a good thing, consider the Mafia. Ask yourself how much money criminals will make from your proposal.

And then don’t do it.

....

What were they thinking? Of course prisoners shouldn't get the vote.

****

My decidedly liberal attitude to criminal justice faced a challenge as the great "should prisoners get the vote" debate raged. And yes, the quite hideous John Hirst did a pretty good hatchet job on my willingness to support liberalisation but that wasn't the clincher. The clincher is this blogpost from SadButMadlad on Anna Raccoon's site where he suggests we treat prisoners in the same manner as many of our elderly, nursing home 'customers':

The criminals would get cold food, be left all alone and unsupervised. Lights off at 8pm, and showers once a week.  Live in a tiny room and pay £600.00 per week and have no hope of ever getting out.

Now I know not all old folks homes are like this - especially the creative, modern ones in the private sector - but it's a strong point. And bear in mind that plenty of those old people are effectively denied the vote too since no-one bothers to make it possible for them.

....

Prison works...Prison doesn't work. An argument for fewer but longer prison sentences

****

While rioting (might be but we're not sure) students have hogged the headlines, the Government has quietly rekindled the debate about prison. And specifically the difference of view between the "prison works" position of Michael Howard and the " prison's just a training ground for criminals" viewpoint.

It seems to me that both arguments are correct. Prison does "work" if by that you mean locking criminals up results in them not being out in the wider world burgling, mugging and robbing. In this narrow sense (and assuming that the short term supply of criminals is fixed - that we have a zero sum game), the greater the proportion of that criminal population incarcerated at any one time, the less crime.

However, if (and I hope this is the case) part of the aim of our justice system is to reduce the supply of criminals then there's no question that prison doesn't work. I've lost count of the times when a copper has said that a localised rise in crime is "probably down to several known burglars being released from prison." From this it is patently clear that - as a means of preventing recidivism - prison doesn't work.

So where does this take us? For me the starting point has to be the demographics of our prison population - a population that has, more or less, doubled under the last Labour government. Our prison population is overwhelmingly male and young - it is also disproportionately illiterate or barely literature, dependent in one way or other on booze or drugs and suffering from a bewildering assortment of mental health problems. Indeed, we know that many troubled young people find brief periods in prison quite a relief from the struggle of the world outside - regular meals, routine and a clarity of place makes up for the loss of liberty for these young people.

For me it is a failure of a civilised society to bang people up in prison and do nothing to try and sort out the chaotic mess of their lives. Don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting we get all soft - there's a strong case for reducing prisoner contact with the outside, not least in trying to reduce the use of drugs in prisons. But we should lock up fewer people.

However, when we do lock people up - and we should be very clear about the circumstances under which we will do so - it should be for a minimum of two years. At present too many short sentences are given out - nearly half of juvenile sentences and 40% or so of sentences on young adults are for less than two years. With remission and other allowances this simply does not give the system any chance to sort the lives of these young men out. At present they're herded into overcrowded prison units for short periods of time - all we do is take them off the streets for a while.

Two year minimum sentences would allow us to teach illiterates to read and write, to respond to drug and alcohol problems and to provide active mental health support. And during this time we can - and should - expect prisoners to work or learn for at least 35 hours week. Two years is also a significant loss of liberty - I would support a 'three strikes' type system where serial offenders are sent down regardless of the normal tariff for the most recent offence.

At present, we simply view prisons as containment - as places to but bad kids so they're off the streets. At the same time the overcrowding, political correct management and union spanish practices contribute to a dysfunction system that serves neither the public not the prisoner well.

....