Bleeding Hearts Try Budgetary Coercion

Up to three-quarters of children who are locked up before they appear in court do not subsequently receive a jail sentence, a report says.

Now, most people looking at that will draw the conclusion that perhaps the fault lies in the too-lenient ‘justice’ system, and we aren’t getting the jail sentences right.

But not the Prison Reform Trust, of course:

The Prison Reform Trust says children should only be remanded before trial if there is evidence they may commit a violent offence if released on bail.

It wants budget reforms to remove the incentive to jail children on remand.

Or, to put it another way, make it cheaper not to jail young thugs…

The report, Children: Innocent Until Proven Guilty, says that of those children placed in remand by magistrates' courts, three quarters will be found innocent or will not receive a prison sentence for their crime.

This, the report says, means they were locked up without ever being convicted.

Look, ask any member of the public if the punishment for youth offenders is too lenient and you’ll get a resounding ‘yes’.

It’s only the do-gooders (who don’t have to live with the effects of rampant youth misbehaviour) who think that this report ‘proves’ what they claim it does…

The report also states that because child custody is paid for by central government, "there is a perverse incentive which encourages local authorities not to provide specialist remand accommodation as an alternative to prison".

It calls for the budget for remand to be delegated to local authorities, stating that "if local councils had to foot the bill for every child in their area who goes to jail they would have a greater incentive to prevent offending and to offer robust alternatives to custody".

So, cash-strapped councils will face another burden on their budgets, purely in order to stroke the egos of the ‘spare the rod, improve the child’ brigade?

This is utter madness.

People Of Sandwell, You Get What You Vote For…

A "diversity" panel at Sandwell Council in the West Midlands want to introduce a gipsy awareness month, which would be combined with a leaflet drop of "myth busting" facts about traveller communities.

Sandwell, eh..?

Stamping ground of Barmy Bobby Piper and home to cranks like this, and employees who spend public money like water. So we shouldn’t be surprised, really, should we?

From September 2010 all youngsters will have a month of classes to teach them about how gipsy's and travellers are misunderstood.

Great! It’s not like they are lagging behind in things like reading, writing and adding up, is it? Plenty of time to spend on the latest politically correct fad.

And I’m sure the teachers will appreciate the added burden…

Officials have compiled a 40-page report on why gipsies feel stigmatised and how they could combat that problem in a 23-point programme.

It also suggests the introduction of a specialist liaison officer to stay in touch with the nomadic community and for all school children to celebrate the history of the communities.

"Such celebrations can help 'myth bust', make individual communities feel part of the wider community and over all have a very real impact on community cohesion," it said.

"Therefore the panel believes that in 2010 and subsequent years the council through its Communities Unit should run events in each of the six towns on Gipsy and Traveller History Month.

"Furthermore, these should be organised through consultation with members of the gipsy and traveller communities and if a Gipsy and Traveller liaison officer has been appointed, with their assistance."

Wow, sounds complicated. And expensive. Still, taxpayers money, eh?

Plenty of room still left in that pension trough for another council snout…

Fiona McEvoy, from the Taxpayers' Alliance, said that gipsy awareness should not be taught to schoolchildren.

"It's not for local councils to manipulate the school curriculum based on their latest politically correct whims, especially when educational standards are flagging," she said.

"It is more vital than ever that our children receive a solid grounding in key subjects like maths, English, history and science.

Can’t argue with that. If parents agree, they know what to do at the next election, don’t they?

Chairman of the panel, councillor Bawa Singh Dhallu, said:
"Celebrating the event would help pupils and the community as a whole to better understand the gipsies and travellers they are often unknowingly living alongside.

"It would help those gipsy and traveller pupils feel proud of who they are."

Like the oft-mentioned ‘self esteem problem’ with regards to children today, I wasn’t aware that ‘feeling proud’ was a problem for gypsies.

If it suddenly is, might I suggest that not breaking the law would help with that? Just a thought…

He added that if the proposals were accepted by the council it would still be up to schools to decide if they would mark the history month, which is celebrated nationally.

Well, of course. That’s the proverbial ‘offer they daren’t refuse’, though, isn’t it?

Who’s going to be the first head to stand up and say ‘No thanks?’ to the progressive orthodoxy…?

Channel Invasion Imminent?

This could be nasty:

Hundreds of armed riot police massed on Tuesday as anarchists pledged to mobilise migrants in Calais to 'tear down border controls and make for Britain'.

The authorities vowed to detain offenders and said they were expecting 2,000 protesters at a 'Freedom of Movement' camp in the port town.

The French don’t take quite as lassaiz faire an attitude about this as the Brits, happily:

'We're prepared for the worst,' said state prosecutor Jean-Phillipe Joubert.

'Emergency magistrates will be mobilised to ensure anyone causing trouble will be imprisoned immediately. '

If only we had the same sort of officials here…

One of the anarchists, who has camped next to the elite CRS police officers' quarters, said: 'Calais is a symbol of injustices committed against the world's migrants.'

They sound suspiciously like SOAS students on a cross-channel awayday…

It seems, however, that some of the French officials have not been above encouraging this type of action:

Last month, the mayor of Calais, Natacha Bouchart, said Britain's benefits culture and lax asylum system had 'imposed' thousands of refugees on her town.

She demanded millions in compensation and even called for border controls to be lifted, allowing all migrants to flood across the Channel at the earliest opportunity.

Such views are heartily supported by the anarchists organising the 'No Border' demonstrations, set to run from next week.

She’s not wrong in her conjecture about the cause of this, though.

If you don’t want wasps at your picnic, you need to ensure you replace the lid on your pot of jam. Leave it open, and what do you expect?

Hey, What Happened To ‘British Jobs For British People’ Then?

Students have occupied part of a London university in a protest over the detention of nine cleaners arrested by immigration officers.

Because the immigration authorities had the wrong people, perchance?

No, of course not. This was SOAS, after all:

Five cleaners at the School of African and Oriental Studies (SOAS) in Bloomsbury have been deported in what students call an "act of revenge".

The cleaners were involved in a "living wage" campaign and the students say that is why SOAS called in police.

It’s a bit cheeky getting involved in a ‘living wage’ campaign when you actually have no right to work in the country in the first place, wouldn’t you say?

The Home Office said the cleaners were illegal workers and had to be removed.

And a big cheer went up from everyone.

Everyone, that is, who respects the rule of law:

More than 40 students occupied the director's office at 0930 BST on Monday, saying SOAS's reputation had been "tainted" by the incident.

Hard to see how, given SOAS’s reputation is already that of a hotbed of crazy left wing ideas…

One of the occupying students said: "Universities should be sanctuaries, places free of violence and aggression.

"SOAS's reputation as a university has been tainted due to the complicity with state brutality in the arrest of the cleaners."

The students said all the cleaners should be able to stay - regardless of whether they have legal permission to work in the UK.

I’m not sure myself how ‘State brutality’ translates to ‘removing illegal immigrants’, but I guess it helps to have received an ‘education’ at SOAS…

And, in a calculated attempt to gain the political agitator vote (and thereby lose thousands more votes from the working class bloc on minimum wages or unable to get a job cleaning offices due to illegal workers), a Labour MP steps forward to put his foot firmly in his mouth:

Labour MP John McDonnell has given his backing to the cleaners.

He said: "As living wage campaigns build in strength, we are increasingly seeing the use of immigration statuses to attack workers fighting against poverty wages.

"The message is that they are happy to employ migrant labour on poverty wages, but if you complain they will send you back home.

"It is absolutely shameful."

No, Jack, what’s absolutely shameful is a government minister interfering in the business of removing from the UK those who have broken the law, simply so that he can grub a few votes from it….

British 'Justice'...

Before sentencing, recorder Gerard Pounder said: “The victim was a 41-year-old man, just an ordinary man.

“You didn’t know him, he didn’t know you, there was no reason why he shouldn’t have been able to walk home.

“This behaviour is utterly unacceptable in a civilised society.”

Obviously not, or they wouldn't have got a suspended sentence for attacking a complete stranger with an iron bar.

Would they?

Someone Needs An Attitude Adjustment, That’s For Sure…

A woman labelled "potentially violent" after she complained to a Berkshire council about a vandalised flowerbed is suing the authority for libel.

It seems the lady in question saw some anti-social behaviour, and sought to do something about it, instead of walking on by, as so often happens, and letting her local area descend even further:

Ms Clift told the jury that the child was uprooting plants, pulling the heads off flowers and "squashing everything".

She said: "I noted there were adults in the park but no-one seemed to be supervising him."

She approached five adults on a bench but when one of the men became abusive she called the police, who advised her to contact the council.

Ahh, the buck passing we’ve all come to expect these days…

Hugh Tomlinson QC, for Ms Clift, said the authority's anti-social behaviour co-ordinator Fozia Rashid was "very dismissive" and said criminal damage was a matter for the police.

He said Ms Clift was told that she had been provocative and should have left the area.

Hang on, I thought we were all encouraged to report anti-social behaviour?

Certainly, the council-sponsored ’Proud To Be Slough’ campaign would like to encourage the perception of the town as ‘a town that is active, inclusive and safe; well run; environmentally sensitive; well designed and built; well connected; thriving; well served and fair for everyone’.

Difficult to achieve if no-one takes reports of ASB seriously, you’d have thought.

When she complained about Ms Rashid's attitude, she said that as far as she was concerned Ms Rashid could "drop down dead" and followed the matter up with a letter.

Ms Clift wrote: "I felt so affronted and so filled with anger that I am certain I would have physically attacked her if she had been anywhere near me.

"I truly am not of that nature and so, surely, this should act as a wake up call to the borough as to the capacity she has for offending people."

Instead of reading this as her way of saying ‘This officer’s attitude would have made Ghandi reach for a weapon…’, the council read it as ‘VIOLENCE!! THREAT!! OMG!!!’ and promptly took action to prevent themselves ever having to read sarky letters about their staff from the people who pay their wages:

Patrick Kelleher, the council's head of public protection, then told Ms Clift that a marker would be placed against her name for 18 months as a result of her allegedly "violent and threatening behaviour".

Note: not actually proven ‘violent and threatening behaviour’, just the councils’
perception of such…

Isn’t it fun when you get to make up the rules that the sheep who have to pay for your index-linked public service pension must live by?

Ms Clift brought her claim against the council and Mr Kelleher on the basis that she was libelled by the entry of her name on the council's Violent Persons Register and by an email sent to a large number of people informing them of this.

I’d be intrigued to know exactly who that ‘large number of people’ to receive the email would potentially be…

And I wish her luck with her court case. If the council loses, the costs should come out of Fozia Rashid’s wages.

Workbloggers Beware!

By now, you'll all have read about the disgraceful outing of 'Nightjack' by a reporter from the 'Times'. Can 'NHS Blog Doctor' and 'The Magistrate's Blog' stand? Using the same justification, it would seem they too are fair game for any little lickspittle eager to silence a critical voice or two.

Iain Dale, Obo, Blue Eyes and Old Holborn weigh in, and even those on the left are beginning to recognise this isn't a good thing, which is welcome.

I think the MSM and establishment will come to regret this action...

In other news, for those looking to register their displeasure at the Iranian election theft, there's this to amuse you... ;)

Update: Unenlightened Commentary, Leg-Iron, MummyLongLegs, and Harry's Place have added posts on this. All well worth reading.

Man’s Social Service’s Inhumanity To Man…

A dying woman whose children are in foster care has been told that her contact with them will be cut to 90 minutes a fortnight because of her failing health.

Doesn’t that give you a warm feeling inside? It does me.

Of rage, mind you…

Her son and daughter were taken into care because of an allegation — dismissed after an investigation — that a friend had sexually abused one of them.

So why are they still in care?

Mrs Brown’s large and supportive family have made numerous attempts to bring the children back into their care.

Her father, George, 72, a former BBC executive, was judged too old to look after the children, although he has regularly taken them on holidays. Anne offered to buy a bigger house to accommodate them, but was told that her job as a journalist would make it impossible for her to parent them.

Mrs Brown’s son Sam, who is 23, was assessed as not having a sufficiently stable relationship with his girlfriend.

Oh, where to start..?

It seems that having taken the children, they are now pulling excuses out of their collective arse in order to hang onto them. Too old at 72? Journalism not an ‘approved’ job?

And not having a ‘sufficiently stable’ relationship? Are you kidding me? Since when have the SS worried about that?

Pretty nearly all their recent screw-ups have involved the kind of ‘families’ where an attempt to chart the relationships would look like a drunken spider had gotten into someone’s Etch-A-Sketch…

Then in March 2006 Mrs Brown arrived at the children’s school to find that they had been taken into care. Louise had told her teacher that a friend of her mother had abused her.

Mrs Brown recalled packing her children’s clothes as they waited outside in the social worker’s car. They left that afternoon.

After a police investigation and medical examination, the allegation was dismissed.

Louise retracted her statement to the family. But social services became concerned about Mrs Brown’s ability to protect her children.

“The social workers say they have got new families. But we are their family,” Anne said. “When they’re 16 social services won’t want to know them.”

Quite. They’ll be turned out onto the street, along with all the other young people irrevocably damaged by being condemned to the ‘care’ of the State.

Which, as always, isn’t exactly bucking the trend in this case:

On the brink of adolescence, the children are not likely candidates for adoption and the family says their behaviour has deteriorated significantly. Both hover on the edge of exclusion from school. Their family concedes that they are now difficult to handle together.

Their grandfather believes that this is because of the disruptions: “They have been knocked off a normal way of life with their mother and among family and they have been isolated and pitched into an alien atmosphere.”

Which is not to say that such deterioration is inevitable. But it’d take a very, very strong character to survive such upheaval and uncertainty.

In 2007 a judge emphasised the importance of retaining the children’s strong family bonds. Anne believes that depriving a dying woman of her children goes against this direction. As her relatives spoke, Mrs Brown faintly echoed their feelings. “Angry,” she muttered. “Angry and sad.”

There’s nothing more to add, really, is there?

Who Says PC Gaming Erodes Creativity...?

Not a 'Sims' fan myself, but someone's taken the new 'Sims 3' game to a whole, new (heartbreaking) level...

This is far more interesting than 'Eastenders'!

Uneasy Rider…

Teenager Sam Scutts has found a novel way to get around in Gravesend – he bought, and rides, a mobility scooter. Perfectly legally.

In 2009, of course, even doing something legal can get you stopped and threatened by police officers with no knowledge of the law and too much time on their hands:

However, Sam was stopped by the police while riding through Gravesend town centre on June 3.

He says two officers on foot, one on a bicycle and a police car swooped on him outside Debenhams as he rolled alongside his friends.

That’s, assuming only one officer in the police car, four police for one teenager harmlessly riding his mobility scooter?

It’s only a wonder they didn’t call in an ARV and a helicopter…

“They threatened to arrest me for dangerous driving, add three points to my provisional driving licence, tow away the scooter and fine me £110”, he says.

However, after a lengthy discussion the officers let Sam go with a warning and he drove home.

What..?!?

He said: “I was shocked by the police reaction because I was not doing anything wrong.

“I wasn’t driving dangerously, I was driving around people and stopping to let them pass, and the fastest I can go is walking pace.

“And there’s nothing illegal about me driving the scooter - I checked and its not against the law to drive one if you’re not disabled.”

He added: “The amount of police officers who came, it was as though they thought I was going to try to escape in it, even though it only does 4mph."

So, Sam can expect an apology from the police for this attempt to intimidate a young man by threatening him with a non-crime, and some retraining for the police who don’t seem to know what the law is, or what their powers entitle them to do?

Yeah, right:

Chief Inspector Pete Ayling, of Kent police, says the officers response was “proportionate” because Sam was “thought to be acting in an anti-social manner” .

He added: “The number of officers involved is a consequence of the incident happening in a busy town centre.”

So, when it became apparent that he wasn’t acting in an anti-social manner, was it still ‘appropriate’ for your officers to threaten him with something that wasn’t even an offence, and issue a warning about….well, what, exactly?

Probably this:

He is aware some people may think it is inappropriate for an able-bodied 17-year-old to ride a mobility scooter, but says: “I don’t think it’s offensive as I’m not hurting anyone, I’m just having fun.

Obviously, that can’t be allowed…

Oh, and Mr Ayling? While those officers were harassing a young lad while trying desperately to find something to add to their targets, they weren’t patrolling your ‘busy town centre’, were they?