21/08/13

                          Life for a life?

On the 23^rd October 1983, Suzanne Laitner planned the most memorable day of her life- her wedding. It was to become the most memorable day of her life for a very different reason. Hours after her wedding reception, her parents Basil and Avril Laitner were murdered in their home. Her brother Richard was also stabbed to death and her 18 year old sister raped at knife point by Arthur Hutchinson. Hutchinson, who was already wanted for rape and had spent 5 years in prison for attempting to murder his brother-in-law, was sentenced to life imprisonment in September 1984. It was recommended that he spend at least 18 years behind bars, meaning he could have been released in 2002.

Former home secretary Leon Brittan placed Hutchinson on a list of prisoners, whose life sentences should mean life, meaning he would probably never be released.

Hutchinson appealed the sentence, his solicitors arguing that an actual life sentence was in breach of the treble murderers' human rights. In July this year the European Court of Human Rights ruled that it was inhuman and degrading to never have the possibility of parole and was indeed in breach of his human rights.

In August 1985 25 year old Jeremy Bamber shot dead his adoptive parents and sister along with her 6 year old twins. He was given 5 life sentences for the crimes which prosecutors said he carried out for inheritance money. He claimed and still pleads to this day his innocence. Like Hutchinson, Bamber also claimed the sentence breached his human rights and the European Court of human rights has ruled in his favour also.

The government now has six months to respond to Strasbourg’s rulings.

These rulings by the ECHR begs the question, should life mean life? Should a man or woman convicted of crimes like these be locked up until they die, or should their human rights be protected and their liberty granted at some point? If killers like Hutchinson and Barber are freed by Strasbourg what message would it send to criminals? Would it lead to prisoners such as serial killer Peter Sutcliffe, who murdered 13 women in the ‘80s and is serving 20 life sentences having the right to appeal?

Some will no doubt say that if we take away the civil liberties and breach the human rights of murderers, then we are no better than them. They will argue that the fact we have the decency to grant these people their dignity is what grants us the right to sit in judgement. There will, inevitably, be those who say everyone deserves a second chance and prison should be about rehabilitation.

There will also be those who say an eye for an eye, a life for a life. Some might say the likes of Bamber, Hutchinson and Sutcliffe should be executed. There are still many people who believe that the death penalty should be brought back for crimes such as these.

Some opportunist political voices will use this story as proof that we should get out of Europe and make our own rules.

 Personally, I can see a case for all of these arguments but ultimately, we must treat even the most savage of criminals like human beings. It is wrong to intentionally take another life under any circumstances. It is wrong to deprive someone of their dignity, even if they have deprived others of theirs. It is vital that we show humanity and compassion to people convicted of the most terrible crimes if we are to protest when other countries do not treat prisoners the way we would like them to. If we are to be held aloft as an example of fairness and decency as a nation, then we need to demonstrate this to our monsters, not just our petty criminals.

 That said, I also believe that some people are incapable of rehabilitation, and even aged in their 70’s pose a threat to the general public. One would hope that these people would not be released but that should be for the parole board to decide, not a single home secretary.



update 27/2/14

 

In August last year the European Court of Human Rights ruled that all convictions should be reviewed after 25 years. This ruling would mean that whole of life sentences – with no possibility of release would no longer be allowed, putting hold some high profile cases, such as soldier Lee Rigby’s killers.

Last week a panel of five judges backed the principle of whole life terms, overturning the Strasbourg decision. It said that the ability to pass whole-life orders was entirely compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The court increased the 40 year minimum term handed to Ian McLoughlin who murdered a good Samaritan during a robbery while on day release from prison, to a whole-life tariff. Even McLoughlin, who was on day release from a life sentence for a 1992 murder, said the family of victim Graham Buck, deserved to know that he would die in prison. McLoughlin had previously served 10 years for manslaughter after beating a man over the head with a hammer in 1984.

The court also rejected an appeal against a whole of life sentence given to Lee Newell, who murdered a child killer while in prison for a separate murder.

Tory MP, Dominic Raab said “the UK courts have definitively rejected the ludicrous ruling from Strasbourg demanding that the most dangerous criminals are given the chance to be freed. It is a victory for common sense and democracy- and shows the government is right to fight the human rights mission creep tooth and nail.”

 

 

There are currently forty nine prisoners serving whole-life sentences including Rose West and cop killer Dale Cregan.

Some would argue that the heinous crimes these people have committed should mean they are punished severely and should give up the right to their freedom for ever, along with any other rights such as voting.  Other more liberal people may argue that no matter what the crime there has to be a portion of rehabilitation to prison and one could argue that hope is an integral part of that process. If we are simply punishing, and are to throw away the key, then there is little chance of (or point to) rehabilitation.

If we are to say once convicted of serious crime we give up on you and you in turn give up your rights to be treated like a human being then surely we are no better than the cold blooded killers we seek to punish.

I’m not saying set them free- far from it. I think stiff sentencing is crucial as a deterrent and to say we as a society will not tolerate this behaviour but to take away all hope will lead to desperation. Desperate people do desperate things. There should be a minimum term with a review to follow. The word review does not guarantee freedom but gives hope. If in forty years’ time these people are still a threat to the public or if they fail to show any remorse then they should be kept locked up- that simple.

I fear too many people will use this case to bang the drum for getting out of Europe. We always hear that parliament is sovereign meaning it makes its own laws so the EU argument ought to be irrelevant but whether in Europe or not we simply cannot remove all hope and dignity from people in prison.  Again, I’m not advocating Xbox and movie night, I’m saying if you take away a person’s rights completely you will only make a bigger monster.

 There are people alongside the life term prisoners who have not committed such crimes. Some are purely victims of circumstance and have a second chance on release. People who have all rights and all hope taken away have nothing to gain from behaving and nothing to lose from not. The less dangerous criminals locked up alongside such caged animals will be at risk of never rehabilitating either and may even continue to commit crimes in jail, leading to longer sentences like in the case of Lee Newell. Other young vulnerable prisoners will also be at risk of being radicalised by the two men jailed this week for the horrific killing of Lee Rigby.

We need to make a decision whether we want our prisons to places of rehabilitation and education, providing offenders with a chance of life after prison or simply a nasty place to punish criminals we have given up on as a society.

 

Two weeks ago I wrote a blog about sexism. It made no attempt to offer my opinion in any way, but was intended to pose questions to the reader about themselves. Some misunderstood and thought it represented my views, others thought it was provocative. As I offered no explanations or caveats with the piece, I thought I would now give an opinion.

That said, it is just that; an opinion of someone who doesn’t claim to be the voice of the victims or the voice of men or the voice of anyone else.

I don’t know how it feels to be victimised for the colour of my skin because it has never happened to me. I don’t know how it feels to be insulted because I am obese, or ginger or religious, because I have never experienced any of those things. I don’t know how it feels to be a victim of sexism because it has never happened to me. Some might say I am very fortunate. I suspect I am. The only small oppressed minority group that I belong to (apart from being a lifelong Sheffield United fan), is literally that – I am shorter than most men.

Recently at work, I took part in a presentation where I had to speak at the front of the room before about 40 people. As I walked to the front of the room, someone shouted “can you stand on a chair so we can see you?” I didn’t hear anyone laugh or comment and I chose to simply ignore it. I did not feel victimised. I did not feel discriminated against nor did I feel offended. I paused and carried on with what I was doing and quickly forgot the comment. I only remembered the comment later, when someone said that the person who heckled was out of order. I said it wasn’t even funny or original. Rather than thinking that his comment was the action or attitude of everyone in the room, I believe that his outburst said more about him than me.

With that incident in mind I wonder if the assault on men as a whole in social media sites is appropriate. As a man, I am able to acknowledge that unfair treatment of any one person or group of people, because of their age, gender, ethnic origin, height, class, sexual preference or weight, is absolutely wrong, unacceptable  and has no place in modern society. Blaming the deplorable actions of a few on the entire male population is surely as bad as the acts themselves. Again, I feel the need to clarify that statement- and I am not suggesting that all women or feminists or people on twitter are guilty of this but I have read many comments aimed at sexist men that attacks all men and this is also unacceptable.

Now, to answer some of the questions I asked of the reader a fortnight go..

Firstly, it is wrong to judge a sportsman or sportswoman on her appearance as it is entirely irrelevant. Footballers should be judged on their football skills, runner’s on their running skills, teachers on their teaching ability, tennis players on their tennis. It is fair that those who put themselves up as role models are judged on their morals to a degree as well. If they are ugly or attractive has no bearing on their ability to do their job so should not be a factor in commentary. Men and women employed to provide a public service, such as those employed by the television companies should not be saying sensational stupid comments about any body’s looks. When they do say stupid offensive remarks they should expect to be punished, not merely issue an apology.

Since my original article, there has been an almighty storm which started on twitter. Following a female publicly campaigning to have more women on our money, she faced threats of rape and bombing on twitter. This is an absolute outrage and the people responsible should be jailed and banned from social media sites for life. I am all in favour of campaigning. I am all in favour of free speech. I am in favour of democracy. I disagree with most Tory policies and usually disagree with most Tory supporter’s views and tweets. I have never once had any inclination to threaten those people with violence, rape or bombing, and I have never said anything personally insulting to them. This isn’t because I am extraordinary; this is because I am a normal person. Normal fair human beings realise that everyone is individual and should be judged as such. Ignorant, narrow minded stupid bullies seek to influence others by bullying and harassing and making threats to others that challenge their beliefs. They can never be allowed to succeed.

The lack of women in boardrooms and top jobs is due to sexist ideas and systems that are undoubtedly outdated but never the less still exist. I asked is it because women have traditionally stayed at home and raised the kids. Yes, I believe that is the case and I believe that is down to sexist attitudes and behaviours. I also believe it needs to change and think of myself as fortunate to work for an employer with a majority of women managers. Despite a high number of female managers though there is still a heavy male dominance at the very top. If there is to be true fairness in the work place ( and life) then women need to be encouraged and enabled to get the top jobs. They should be empowered. The success of them will inspire the next generations and help them see that there is an alternative to staying home and raising the kids. Those that want a career should be able to compete for roles on a level playing field and judged on merit not gender.  Those who do want to stay at home and raise a family should not be criticized for that either though. I know from my own experience that staying at home looking after a house and children can be more testing and indeed exhausting than going to work- I know what I would rather do.. I do not pretend to have an answer to the boardroom problem, as I don’t think positive discrimination is fair either. There should not be all white, all black, all young or all anything shortlists. It is mind-set that needs to change and sadly I feel only hard work and time will change that.

Despite massive strides from the past we are still experiencing everyday racism, sexism, bigotry and ignorance that need to be highlighted and jumped upon. We all could give examples of this. It’s not all one way either. Would David Beckham be the most famous footballer on the planet if he hadn’t married a pop star and posed in his pants many, many times? I suspect not.

I also I feel we should be aware that things have got better and not believe the negative propaganda we read in our papers and see on our TV screens and social media site. We are not all bigots. We are not all anti-Muslim. We are not all racist. We are not all homophobic. We are not all sexist.

Here is a link to an article I had published in the Sheffield Star.
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/opinion/viewpoint-how-the-other-half-now-have-to-exist-1-5826928

This time last year (with no politics to write about), I wrote that former Liverpool striker Fernando Torres would be the Premier Leagues top goal scorer. I was wrong. This season I’m tipping another Anfield favourite, Luis Suarez will have the biggest impact on the league. If he finally joins the Gunners he could give Arsenal the teeth they have been looking for in recent years. Suarez who cost Liverpool £22.7m in 2011 has been the subject of speculation all pre-season but Liverpool insist the Uruguayan will remain at the club unless their £50m valuation is met. Despite the fact that he will miss the start of the season as he finishes a lengthy ban for biting, Suarez could still have a huge part to play in the Premier league story this season.

 

 

If he stays at Liverpool and manager Brendan Rodgers can get his youngsters playing the kind of football he produced at Swansea, then Liverpool should be have a much more successful season than last year. I expect at least a top 4 finish.

In Manchester it’s all change in the dug-outs.  Sir Alex has finally spat out his chewing gum and handed the reins to David Moyes. After gaining a reputation at Everton, he faces a massive challenge trying to replace the most successful Premier League manager ever. Last season’s top scorer Robin Van Persie will be vital if United are to retain the title. Although United have linked with Van Persie’s old team mate, Cesc Fabregas, which would undoubtedly be a formidable partnership again, I very much doubt the Spaniard will leave current club Barcelona. It’s unclear what role if any Wayne Rooney will play, but I still expect Manchester United to be among the top two.

On the other side of Manchester, under new boss Pellegrini, the former champions might take a while to settle. He has brought in some big names like Jesus Navas and his former Seville team mate Negredo, but for City to enjoy success he will need them to reunite quickly.

The only competition Suarez has faced for column inches in the transfer news is Tottenham’s Gareth Bale. Carlo Ancelotti’s Real Madrid have allegedly made an £80m plus offer for the influential 24 year old. I feel the player himself could have quashed this talk by now if he didn’t want to go, but the Welshman’s camp’s comments that he wanted to speak to Madrid  indicates to me that the London club will be without him come this season. Former Spurs favourite Luka Modric could be returning to White Hart Lane as part of that deal. It is looking increasingly likely with Tottenham breaking the club record to sign Valencia striker Roberto Saldado  adding weight to the theory. Spurs however, will struggle to penetrate the top four without Bale.

London rivals Chelsea of course have much to be excited about, with the return of “the special one”, Jose Mourinho’s return. Not only do they have Mourinho back at the helm, fans’ favourite Frank Lampard remains at the club after much speculation about his future last season. If John Terry can keep injury free and Mourinho can get Torres back to the form he enjoyed at Liverpool, I think the Blues will have a very good chance of their first title since 09-10 season. I think this season will throw up a surprise or two and one such surprise could be a smaller team enjoying some success. With the much travelled Nicholas Anelka signing for West Brom, former Chelsea colleague Steve Clarke could guide his side to upset a few of the big boys. With Yousif Mulumbu signing a new contract the Baggies biggest challenge will be replacing the goals of their top marksman for last season Romelu Lukaka, who returns to Stamford Bridge.

I would like see the silky style of Michael Laudrup’s Swansea build on their cup success of last term and become an established top 6 team, but much will depend on Spanish striker Michu’s partnership with £12m Ivory Coast signing Wilfred Bony.

 

Match of the Day should be entertaining this season with the return of the highly amusing Joe Kinnear at Newcastle. The king of calamity could oversee a revitalised Toon with striker Papis Cisse apparently “raring to go” after making a stance against club sponsors Wonga. On the other hand, Kinnear could be responsible for an implosion at St James Park with the role of Alan Pardew under some scrutiny.

At the wrong end of the table it will be interesting to see how the promoted teams cope with the huge step up in class. If big spending Cardiff can build on last season’s Championship they will need to keep veteran striker Craig Bellamy firing on all cylinders. I fear even with a fit and eager Bellamy and new signings Andreas Cornelius, from Copenhagen and  Steven Caulker from Spurs respectively, it will be a big ask for the Welsh club to have little more than a relegation battle to celebrate.  The Bluebird’s will be in a dog fight with fellow new boys Crystal Palace who are tip for this season’s whipping boys. It’s hard see them putting up much of a fight against the multi-millionaire opponents in the best league in the world.

 The experience of Steve Bruce at Hull should see them improve on their last stint in the top flight in 2008/09 season when they were relegated in 2010.  While I don’t expect the sort of arrival they enjoyed on their promotion to the Premier League the first time round, I think Bruce’s knowledge of the division will be enough to secure safety.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see Chris Houghton’s Norwich City struggle, and they could face the drop this year. Paulo Di Canio’s  Sunderland need to improve massively from last season if they are to avoid a repeat of last season’s relegation struggle but the fiery Italian’s passion and flare could shape them into a solid mid-table side. Paul Lambert’s rebuild of Aston Villa will continue and I predict a better season from them.

Stoke City manager Mark Hughes has a job to resurrect his reputation after his disastrous spell at QPR. He needs to reinvent Stoke after taking over from Tony Pulis.

 

Champions: Chelsea

Runners up: Manchester United

Third:            Manchester City

 

Relegated: Crystal Palace, Cardiff, Norwich

Sexism or just male ignorance?

During this year’s prestigious Wimbledon tournament, the BBC was forced to apologise after veteran presenter John Inverdale made sexist remarks about ladies champion Marion Bartoli.

55 year old Inverdale said on TV “I just wonder if her Dad did say to her, listen you’re never going to be- you know, a looker ”, sparking outrage from viewers with over 700 complaints. Social media networks were full of calls for his sacking. Mr Inverdale escaped punishment from his BBC bosses but was forced to apologise on TV and had write a snivelling letter to the French champion.

Just days before this foreign secretary William Hague appeared to call fellow parliamentarian Cathy Jaimeson a “stupid woman”, after she asked a question at Wednesdays prime ministers questions. He too issued an apology saying he had intended to cause no offence..

Both incidents were labelled in the media as sexist remarks, but were they sexist or were they just very bad manners?

Calling someone stupid is clearly not polite, nor is calling someone ugly, but does that cause offence more when aimed at a woman or is it equally as bad if the recipient of the comment is of the same gender?

Prime minister David Cameron felt the wrath of the female public last year when he told a lady colleague “calm down dear”, quoting from the well-known TV advert.

So what does constitute sexism?

Is it sexist to call a member of the opposite sex attractive or only when you are calling them ugly? As a man, I would not be offended in the slightest if a female told me I had a good physique, although I wouldn’t be too thrilled if she said I was a short fat old man. Is this because I am sexist or is it because I am male? Is sexism only applicable if carried out by a male against a female or does it apply both ways? Is it only sexism if uncomplimentary?

Is the massive lack of women in the boardrooms of big business a result of institutionalised sexism or simply a result of generations of stay at home mums and house wives? Would it be acceptable to remedy this by having all female shortlists or would that be just as bad or even worse?

 Is the recent spate of sexist behaviour because some men think that women are less worthy than them, therefore it is OK to demean and belittle them or is it simply that men don’t know any better?

Could it be that as a nation we are so determined to excersize our right to be offended and rid ourselves of bigots that we have given up the right to offend?

Now clearly, some people who have the opinion that rape is the fault of the victim or that they were in some way asking to be raped are not nice people. They are stupid ignorant foolish idiots but does that make them sexist? I just don’t know.

In a world where some of us strive for real equality where everyone should be accepted and treated fairly whether black, white, Asian, fat, thin, tall, small, man, woman, gay or straight- do we need labels for individual acts of ignorance or could we just simply show these people for what they actually are – idiots?

I don’t know the answer to these questions but then, I’m just a man.

The world’s media is currently preparing to bring us the news that Nelson Mandela has died. Obituaries have been long written, as Mandela has been in ill health for some time.

Those obituaries will undoubtedly acknowledge him as the man who almost single handedly ended Apartheid, a man who despite being held captive for 27 years, always remained dignified and courageous. never answered racism with racism.

 The inevitability of death has been faced it seems with same grace, courage and dignity. South Africa has been holding a vigil for their first ever black president for weeks, thinking his death was imminent, yet incredibly he is still hanging on with the determination he lived his life by.

Many world leaders have already paid tributes to the man, some of whom previously described as a terrorist.. He was to be fair, the co-founder of a militant group in 1961 which led to a bombing campaign against the government, ultimately leading to him being jailed for life for attempting to over throw the government and sabotage.

Retrospectively, however, it is hard to imagine the hardship and oppression, which he and his fellow black South Africans endured. It is not difficult to understand the anger that led him down that path. One could argue that in today’s world he would not have needed to do what he did. He is famously quoted as saying during his trial, at which he faced the death penalty ““I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

After being jailed he never faltered in his fight for equality. Indeed his beliefs were so robust it is said he turned down conditional offers of freedom several times, before finally being released in February 1990.

Four years later he was inaugurated as South Africa’s first democratically elected President. He stepped down after one term, aged 81. He was and will continue to be after his passing, an inspirational figure. 

Reading about his early political activity and the accusations of terrorism reminded me of the fight against racism in our country today.

The EDL have been marching through major cities, organizing mass demonstrations which have led to accusations of them being racist, violent bullies. The very kind of people Mandela might have considered the enemy.

The leader of the English Defence League, Tommy Robinson strenuously denies these allegations against him despite previous convictions for violent behavior. His “members” were pictured wearing balaclavas and acting in a very menacing and threatening way following the atrocious murder of soldier Lee Rigby in London. Robinson also claims that pictures and even videos of members making offensive gestures have been doctored.  He said recently in an interview with BBC journalist Andrew Neil that the EDL had no membership yet their official website bosts that it has 35,908 members.

The website also carries a mission statement that does stress that is a human rights organization set up in response to the actions of a very small minority of Muslim extremists. It also acknowledges that many Muslims are the victims and that not all Muslims are bad. They appear to be trying very hard to be taken seriously by the media while attacking people in cities up and down the country both verbally and physically. They recently tried to march through Sheffield twice, on both occasions being massively outnumbered and out shouted. The message from the people of Sheffield is the same message as the rest the country. The EDL are not wanted, not welcome and will not win support through intimidation.

Mr Robunson was arrested today while attempting a “walk of honour”, before being released on bail. While being bungled into the police vehicle he said “You couldn't make this up. The whole world is watching. All we want to do is complete our sponsored walk. Is this freedom in 2013?

The worry for me is that Mr Robinson and his disciples will become martyrs and win support from freedom of speech and human rights champions. If we are not careful when expelling him from the debate we may actually give his cause credibility.

The EDL says it is not racist yet almost every line of its mission statement is anti-Muslim.

They claim to want freedom of speech while publically criticizing the Quran.

The EDL are hypocrites, hooligans and racists. Hopefully, they will in the future be shown as that and condemned. History will say Nelson Mandela was everything that Tommy Robinson is not.

                                                                          

Pensioner’s – you’ve never had it so good..

There has been a lot of talk recently about whether or not old age pensioners should be exempt from the cuts. Labour has said that if they win the next election, they will have to look at benefits paid to pensioners such as heating allowance.

For years political parties have been afraid to touch benefits given to the elderly as they are the bulk of the electorate. More pensioners vote in elections than any other age group.

It is right that in these times of austerity, when benefits are been slashed for the unemployed and even tax credits to the poorly paid are under threat, that wealthy rich people should not be exempt.

Obviously no one wants to see elderly people alone and already living in poverty squeezed further but many people entitle to old age pension now are the most comfortable generation ever. Many benefitted from good private and employer pensions, earning more in retirement than thousands do in work today. Many will have been lucky enough to purchase their homes at prices so low the values will have increased tenfold in many cases. I know of people who bought council homes in Sheffield for as little as £6000 which are now worth over £100,000

Taking all these things into account it is evident that there will be elderly couples who are mortgage free, taking home £350 plus per week in pensions and in many cases, still holding a part time job. Why should they also be given free bus passes, heating allowances and free TV licence?  Once upon a time the argument was that these people had fought wars and earned the right to a little privilege in their old age. Not so many these days.

On the other side of the coin there will be people “retiring” who have not worked for twenty years. Is it then fair to punish the people who worked to buy their homes and pay into private pensions so that we can afford to pay people who have squandered their wages or contributed little in the first place? The incentive to save in private pensions would be damaged and people may think they are better off having no provisions to look after themselves in old age,

Of course this is wrong. That is why the only fare way to decide who gets help is means testing.

I don’t want to see vulnerable little old ladies with no money forced to into further poverty. For many a free bus pass is the only way to get out of the house, the other passengers and people in town will sadly for many old people be the only other people they see. For those people that bus pass is absolutely vital.

However, there will be people of the same age receiving a free bus pass, who have a Mercedes Benz parked in the double garage. The same people may have a holiday home in the south of France and live there 6 months a year while claiming heating allowance. The problem is the obvious lack of consistency, both in lifestyles and incomes. There are such wildly differing circumstances that a universal –everyone gets benefit is ludicrous.

There are millions of people of working age that already claiming tax credits or unemployment benefits. There are many old people claiming pension credits meaning that HMRC already holds information about the vast majority of people in this country. I don’t understand why means testing would be so expensive if HMRC already has the data.

There is also an argument I have heard that some elderly people are too pride to claim if they had to apply for it. TOUGH! They obviously don’t need it that badly then.  

We simply cannot afford not to means test pensioners along with everyone. There will be readers who will say undoubtedly that it is more complicated than I have implied and that pensioners have earned the right to luxuries but in a country that is supposed to be financial leader, it incomprehensible that millionaires living abroad are given the same benefits as vulnerable, penniless old people struggling alone in poverty. It’s simply not fair.

multi-millionaire O A P Paul McCartney