Fake charity steals from reformed prisoners

Ah yes, as bland churnalism, this can hardly be beaten:

At least £1m a year will be taken from prisoners' wages and used to help crime victims, under legislation coming into force today.

About 500 offenders who work outside prisons in community schemes will see their take-home pay cut by 40 per cent, as part of the "rehabilitation revolution" promised by Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary.

There are also plans to take cash from prisoners who work behind bars, although they receive just £10 a week on average.

Under the Prisoners' Earnings Act, 40 per cent of prisoners' wages – after tax, national insurance and any court-ordered or child support payments – will be given to Victim Support. Javed Khan, the charity's chief executive, said the money will be used "to deliver real, practical support for victims and communities".

Policing minister Nick Herbert said: "Making offenders pay financial reparation to victims will require them to take personal responsibility for their crimes.

I scarcely know where to start with this bollocks, but here's some random thoughts:

"Victim Support" is a fake charity, largely supported by state extortion. If you look at their accounts:

Income from the Ministry of Justice was £38.6m for the year. Income from other statutory bodies, including local authorities and criminal justice agencies, was £10M.

They spend a bloody large percentage of their income on salaries:

Total expenses for the year were £49.6m (£48.6m in 2008/09) of which £35.1m relates to staff salaries (£32.9m in 2008/09).

I can't find evidence for Javed Khan's salary, but his predecessor earned a tidy £100,000 per annum, apparently.

So, it sounds like Victim Support is nothing more than a lobbying organisation, funded by the state to lobby the state ... evidently for more funding!

It certainly doesn't sound like there's a massive amount of money left for, you know, supporting victims in any kind of financial way.

Another thing to bear in mind is that the tiny handful of prisoners who are allowed to work outside of prison, often have to fund a lot of their living expenses. They are rarely paid much more than the minimum wage. So there is now a massive incentive for the handful of prisoners that everyone agrees are a safe bet to reintroduce into society, to say "fuck you, I'll just sit here and rot some more."

A million pounds is pretty much chump change, even to Victim Support, as it will barely fund another dozen over-paid earnest, executive staff. Who all have hearts of gold.

Dickhead Herbert is also being pretty fucking disingenuous about this crap, because 90% of prisoners will not qualify for paid work, so only the tiniest proportion of prisoners, who are by definition the ones who have done the least damage to society or have the best chance of fitting back in, are bearing the brunt of this petty spitefulness.

All in all, a triumph for the unthinking, the mean-spirited and the average Daily Mail reader. Oh, and a handy little burnish for the tough Tory brigade.

Cunts. One and fucking all.

Get fucked!

I have never been a huge fan of the ASBO, although I've not, to be honest, been very aware of how the mechanics of it work. It seemed to be given to juvenile delinquents who seem to wear it as a badge of honour, rather than regarding it as a deterrent. But via Anna Raccoon and Leg-Iron come two contradictory tales of how councils regard the world's oldest profession and the further demerits of ASBOs. Firstly:

OXFORD’S “most prolific” prostitute has been banned from selling sex on the streets and in her home for five years.

It is not illegal to sell sex – why has this woman been ‘banned’ from carrying out a legal activity? It is not illegal to accept money for a sex act carried out in your home – why has this woman been banned from carrying out a legal activity in her own home?

Drug addict Nicola Harris worked seven days a week along Cowley Road, East Oxford, and Oxford Road, Cowley, as well as seeing clients at her home in Costar Close in Littlemore.

‘Seven days a week’ – a hard working girl then, who has avoided the temptations of raising money to feed her drug habit illegally. Like stealing or shop-lifting. Now she has been banned from raising the money legally, guess what will happen next?

The 33-year-old, who had been subject to an interim Anti Social Behaviour Order since July 9, failed to turn up at Oxford Magistrates’ Court yesterday to hear the city council’s successful application for a full order.

She was probably at work.

Anna goes on to point out that she was arrested for soliciting, which is illegal (why?) whereas prostitution itself is not. However, rather than "do" her for soliciting, instead we go down the ASBO route.

The ASBO is, I discovered, a mechanism by which perfectly legal behaviour can be criminalised. If one or more of the curtain-twitchers in your neighbourhood disapprove of one of your perfectly legal activity, they can apply for an ASBO, and if they get it and you continue with your perfectly activity, you can get done for breaking the conditions of your ASBO. You can then go to jail for doing something that is entirely and explicitly legal. Just because your neighbours don't like it.

Or, even worse, the police don't like it.

Or the council don't like it.

I don't want to be accused of giving people ideas, but how long do you think it will be before the police get ASBOs against photographers? How long do you think it will be before certain conditions get pre-approved ASBOs?

Anyway, back to old Leggy and getting fucked. So it turns out that while someone who is working, rather than stealing, to fund her drug habit and being hounded by the council and the police because of it:

Certain councils are paying for prostitutes for the disabled. It's all about 'outcomes' they say, and they kept a straight face while saying it (which is more than I did while reading it. "Oh, what a marvellous outcome," he ejaculated). The 'outcome' is apparently to turn a sad and dejected disabled bloke into a happy disabled bloke, and the method by which this is achieved is of no consequence. The end justifies the means.

Not surprising, then, that they chose a method that turns any straight bloke of any body shape or mental capacity into a happier version of himself. There is no mention of whether gigolos are available for disabled women or whether the disabled gay is similarly catered for, or whether kosher or halal hookers are on their lists. I do hope they are not applying this lunacy in a discriminatory fashion. That would be wrong.

Why do they think this is in any way right?

Liz Sayce, chief executive of disability network Radar, said the desire for sexual relations was a matter of human rights, meaning cases involving payments should be carefully examined on a "case by case" basis.

So if you're disabled you have a human right to an occasional game of hide the sausage. If you're in full health with all body parts present and accounted for, you don't. If you're not disabled and you procure a business arrangement with a lady of the night, you will be frowned on by a wrinkled man in a wig who will bash a hammer on a table and pronounce 'gross diversion' as the label for the dog. Then he'll take your money so you can't do it again.

If you hack off a limb, you can get a quick poke courtesy of the council tax payer and the wrinkled man in the wig will smile fondly and call you 'pet'.

It makes me wonder if this particular wench of the evening might have turned down a council commission.

Aaahhh ... perhaps it's all become clear after all.

It's becoming apparent to me that the ASBO is going to be the new weapon of choice in the hands of the new puritan pecksniffs and prodnoses. Smoking outside your front door? Get an ASBO. Too strict with your kids? Get an ASBO. Not strict enough with your kids? Get an ASBO. Eating too many burgers? Get an ASBO. Prone to getting drunk? Get an ASBO. Taking too many awkward videos of the police beating people? Get an ASBO. Swear in public? Get an ASBO. Blog? Get an ASBO.

Hell on Earth will not be lakes of brimstone fire, it will be a dull, drab beige existence "normalised" to some puritanical definition of morality.

3 months? 10 months?

Who really gives a fuck?*

I'm more interested in knowing whether he really was guilty or whether he was a patsy to keep other people on-side. And if he should never have been in jail, well then, I think there are some fucking serious questions that need some answering, don't you?

* Well, I'm sure Megrahi does.

Clearly a fit bugger

A random thought about the release of the Lockerbie bomber: I've lived through a loved one dying from cancer, and three months from her eventual release from misery, she needed help to sit up in bed. (To be fair, it obviously wasn't prostate cancer!) But damn, he looked in good shape for someone dying of cancer. A bit pale, but then he was in fucking Scotland, wasn't he? I know Scottish lumberjacks who look like ghosts. (Even Oleuanna says she's turning white up there.)

I suspect that actually they knew that he wasn't guilty and this was some sort of fudge to get him out of jail while still pretending that some kind of justice had been served. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this was some sort of deal whereby he or his family would be minted up and "made", in much the same way that someone who didn't rat on his accomplices would be "blessed" by the Don.

Let's face it, wouldn't you take a deal that required you to sacrifice 8 years of your life to live in the "misery-lite" of a UK prison in exchange for you and yours never having to lift a finger again? Especially if you knew that no-one would ever be able to come after you?

And that eventually evidence would be "found" exonerating you completely, and allowing you to sue your captors for even more money? Wouldn't that really just piss in the face of Once-Great Britain even more? Luckily, I can't see that happening. No, sirree ... no chance of that at all. Ever. Nope. Not at all. Not even a little bit.

Update: The Speccie is really rather cynical about the whole thing.

Farewell to Tripoli

Call me cynical, but in amongst all the frothing about the release of the alleged Lockerbie bomber, something seriously weird is going on. I personally have grave doubts about the legitimacy of his conviction, as does the Devil. But all the froth on Twitter and all the abuse levelled at the Scots for this egregious and unsavoury intervention of the executive into the business of justice has a lot more going on than is apparent to us at the moment.

Firstly, Lord Mandelsnake of Bumfondling and Cock in the cunty of where you live had one of his famous, Geffen-esque lunches with Gaddafi Jnr not all that long ago. I'm guessing that he will be acquiring a nice little villa somewhere warmer in the not too distant future.

Secondly, why would the SNP suddenly and unilaterally decide that this man should be released when there is no political gain for them for it? They have made themselves the target of considerable anger and dismay, not least from their own voters. Alec Salmond may be a cunt, but he's not a fucking cunt - he's a much cannier politician than that.

Thirdly, why has the American response been so muted? You would have thought a man as evil as the Lockerbie bomber being released would get an immediate request for extradition to "Gitmo".

Mark my words, something very suspect is going on here. And as usual, the politicians are lining themselves up for benefits and deals, and us poor fuckers are footing the bill.

They don't like it up 'em, Part 1

An occasional column featuring the hypocrisy of the Righteous when their own tactics are used on them.

So ...

Two High Court judges, Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones, had intended to order that the documents on Mr Mohammed’s alleged torture be published.

However, they decided reluctantly to block the release of the information after being told that the withdrawal of American co-operation would lead to Britons facing a “very considerable increase” in the risk from terrorists.

In their judgment on Wednesday, the judges attacked the conduct of the US government, accusing it of attempting to subordinate the rule of law.

I wonder how these high court judges feel about the egregious use of British courts by libel tourists to stifle free speech in the US?

Serendipitous Newspaper Headlines

I saw this on the Thunderer's front page:

Rachel Nickell’s killer linked to 109 sex crimes

And I thought: "Fucking hell, that's serious police incompetence."

And then I saw the Incrediblydespondent:

An incompetent police force

And I thought: "What about Colin Stagg?"

From the Garadiun:

Rachel Nickell killing: Met apology a long time coming, says innocent Stagg

and from the Times again:

Colin Stagg: how I endured being a 'national hate figure'

And then I thought: "Bet nothing will be done to punish those who fucked up so royally."

And then I saw the Twatograph:

Rachel Nickell: Police rule out inquiry into failings

And will lessons be learnt, I wonder? Hot to trot, the Met are, when it comes to learning lessons.

'Lessons learnt' in Nickell case

British policing in six headlines, right there. Those who we pay to protect us, do nothing useful, persecute an innocent man and then hide from accountability.

Disgraceful in every way.

Cunts.

Really, Mr McNulty?

Our betters are wittering on again:

Home Office Minister Tony McNulty and Justice Minister David Hanson issued a joint statement, in which they said the government's approach to law and order had both made communities safer and also offered support to victims of crime and witnesses.

"In addition, public confidence in the criminal justice system has increased significantly in recent years

Has it, fuck!

There are a couple of polls running here and here.

I don't know what they will look like at the time you read this, but as they stand right now, the first poll says that 100% of respondents believe the system has become worse, with 90% feeling that it's entirely unfit for pupose.

The second (bigger) poll has a whopping 81% saying that they think the odds of the correct outcome are 50% OR WORSE. The largest cohort (36%) have no faith in the criminal justice system at all. 99% of respondents feel that there is at least a 10% chance of the wrong outcome.

If you think that's a ringing endorsement, McNulty, you're fucking mad.

Cunt.

Pass the beta blockers ...

I can't find the words to convey my amazement:

AN SNP COUNCILLOR CAUGHT ON camera firing an AK-47 assault rifle was yesterday spared expulsion from the party by Nationalist officials.

The SNP disciplinary committee rejected dumping Jahangir Hanif, who also passed the deadly weapon to his children, in favour of a two-month suspension.

In a bizarre turn of events, the hearing nearly collapsed after SNP bosses bungled the initial complaint made to the committee.

Tory MSP Bill Aitken said: "Maybe the SNP think this is an adequate disposal, but frankly most people will think this man should not be holding public office. His conduct is a disgrace to his electorate."

The probe into Hanif's conduct followed footage released earlier this month that showed the 46-year-old Glasgow councillor firing an assault rifle while on holiday in Pakistan in December 2005.

The revelations were made worse after it emerged that Hanif had passed the weapon to several of his children, including a daughter who was five at the time.

Another of his daughters, 17-year-old Noor, said she and her siblings fired the gun.

Hanif was immediately suspended by the party and an investigation was launched by the Nationalists' disciplinary committee, which responded to a complaint by SNP national secretary Duncan Ross.

What?

What?????

Truly: WHAT THE FUCK???

Even more: WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK?????????

I've read the article several times now, and I cannot see what it is that this man has done to merit a suspension. He fired a gun. Whoop-de-fucking-doo. So what? He gave it to his kids to show them, including (shock! horror!) a five-year-old. His daughter also shot the gun. And?

Was anyone hurt? Did kittens die? Did little baby Jesus get a cattle prod shoved up his jacksy?

I can't even begin to explain my incomprehension as to how any of this was any fucking business of the SNP or what gives them the right to punish Jahangir Hanif for simply shooting a few rounds with an AK47.

Can somebody please explain it to me?

Oh, and Bill Aitken: you're a fucking pointless twat. Help yourself to a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut, you pathetic excuse for a human being.

Sometimes....

... I quite literally cannot believe my eyes when reading the papers. The Thunderer has stooped to a level that I can't associate with the great newspaper of days gone by:

Dando murder: we need to think twice before locking up the local weirdo

Well, duh?! This is followed by a page of the most blatantly obvious reasoning I've ever seen.

If there is something here that we need to learn, it may be that, in cases when we are about to lock up the local weirdo for a crime, we ought to think twice. And if a celebrity is involved, we ought to think three times.

If this guy is right, if this is the state of British justice at the moment, if people really need this kind of thing pointing out to them, then I seriously hope I never wind up in court, because people are apparently incredibly fucking stupid!

What a travesty, by George!

The Gorgon must be delighted to be off the front pages today.

But I'd rather he was, than what is leading news today: a delusional halfwit has been found innocent of killing Jill Dando. The "evidence" linking him to the crime originally seemed flimsy to me, but I didn't really follow the case in detail. In retrospect, I wonder how heavily the original jury was leaned on, because it looks like there really wasn't anything more to the evidence than I'd surmised.

The police in this cuntry are a fucking disgrace: they suck the state's cock far too assiduously, they're fucking lazy and they're far too keen to stitch some dumb cunt up.

You just know that no-one is going to lose their job over this. A review will be held, lessons will be learned, justifications will be made, yadda, yadda, yadda ...