My take on the "Gay Pardons" campaign

A campaign to "pardon" about 49,000 men who were convicted under laws outlawing male homosexuality (no such law ever existed for females) has recently begun to achieve a much higher profile than formerly, specially since the brilliant code-breaker Alan Turing was the object of a public "unequivocal apology" by then Prime Minister Gordon Brown MP in 2009, then in 2013 he was granted a Royal Pardon by Her Majesty the Queen. Alan Turing died by suicide in 1954, after having been convicted of "gross indecency" in 1952 and offered a choice of prison or "chemical castration" as punishment for his crime (i.e. what was considered a crime at the time).

The basis of the campaign, apart from being a desire to right a wrong, or "gross indecency" (geddit? -Ed) in fact in the law then and its application, is because it is contended (rightly in my view) that every person convicted under this unfair law was just as wronged by it as was Alan Turing. A new film production of the life of Alan Turing, called The Imitation Game, starring Benedict Cumberbatch who plays the role of Alan Turing, has obviously raised the profile of this historic injustice.

So, what do I think of all this? Well I am generally in favour of the campaign, although I have certain reservations about it and similar pardons for other historic injustices. Specifically, Alan Turing was driven to commit suicide in 1954 by the atrocious treatment meted out to him. Comforting as it may be to some of his family now living for this recognition of the wrong he suffered, he is himself no longer in a position to care one way or the other. A wrong has been done which can NEVER be righted, however many times a government of our time says "sorry" or Her Majesty grants a Pardon, no doubt issued on the recommendation of the government in place in 2013 under David Cameron, as it tries to make amends.

The same applies to any of the other 49,000 who are, like Alan Turing, dead. If any of these individuals are still alive then a Royal Pardon might have some real value to them, but for those of them who are dead it serves no real purpose, other than to try and salve the conscience of "the country" collectively. As readers here know, I am a cynical soul, so I cannot refrain from pointing out that one of the principal reasons, in my opinion, for waiting until most or all of these individuals are dead is because compensation claims can be avoided. Granting the Pardon during a person's lifetime would almost inevitably leave the government open to substantial compensation claims.

I feel the same about other historic apologies or Pardons where those directly affected are no longer alive (e.g. US citizens of Japanese descent automatically interned during WWII without looking at individual cases, similar internments of German citizens here during WWII, including some Jewish people who had fled Germany to save their lives).

No, what would be of more value, would be cessation of certain government policies today that are just as awful, for example the repatriation of asylum seekers who are gay to countries where homosexuality is not tolerated, with the near certainty that such people will be abused or in extreme cases even executed in their home countries:
- Two gay asylum seekers deported from UK (a case from 2008);
- Ugandan woman branded by iron over sexuality faces deportation from UK (a case from 2011);
- Report tells Home Office: Don’t ask gay asylum seekers ‘sexually explicit questions’ (report from October 2014).
(Whilst I accept it may be difficult to ascertain fully if claims by an asylum-seeker that he or she is homosexual and in genuine fear of returning back to their home country for that reason are true, we know enough about the policies and practices in many of the relevant countries to be sure of what would probably happen if their homosexuality were to be discovered; telling someone to "behave discreetly" so as not to draw attention to himself or herself is laughable and insulting. It seems that the desire of mainstream political parties of the left and right to placate the "anti-immigration lobby" and political Parties such as UKIP is perhaps making our government blur the lines of what is acceptable.)

In summary, it is all very well for our government to issue rather meaningless apologies and Pardons to people who are for the most part dead, but a more concrete illustration of a real change in behaviour would be the righting of current rather than historic wrongs as they relate to homosexuals. In other words, by all means Talk the Talk, but you must also Walk the Walk.

Ian Brady, "madness" and the "justice system"

I cannot help but feel that the outcome of the "hearing" this week to decide upon the "sanity" (or otherwise) of Ian Brady, aka "The Moors Murderer" was pre-ordained even before it began.

Quite frankly, the reporting of his utterances before the hearing revealed him to be a very sad individual, but I think that it is stretching it a very great deal to say they revealed him to be "mad" and that he needs continuing medical "treatment". Nevertheless, I watched this evening a testimony from someone at Ashworth Hospital saying that he was indeed "mad" and that he was to be consigned, "for the foreseeable future", to the tender mercies of his "carers" at that "institution". My own view is that if he truly wishes no longer to ingest sustenance, liquid or solid, then he should be left to follow this path and "starve himself to death".

Obviously I do not set myself up as an expert on "madness", although I think I can fairly say that I know "evil" when I see it. I do not believe Ian Brady is "mad", but I do think him an irremediably "evil" individual - if he wishes to starve himself to death then I see absolutely no reason why we (as a nation) should prevent him from doing so. My considered view is that he should be returned to the normal prison system and that we should let nature take its course whilst, of course, protecting Ian Brady from victimisation by other prisoners, or indeed prison personnel and offering him continuing nourishment if he wishes to ingest it. If he chooses not to eat, or drink fluids, that is his affair. Other than this I have no other interest in the matter.

In summary, I think the decision to return him to Ashworth Hospital has been taken purely to avoid outraging what is perceived to be the wider "public opinion" (which is highly questionable) or perhaps offending the relatives of his victims. As he is not "immortal", his demise will occur in coming days/years whatever anyone decides - I see no useful purpose in delaying this, whilst obviously I would deplore any pro-active actions to hasten its occurrence.

The question society needs to ask itself is:
When does "punishment" (justified) morph into "pointless vengeance"? I think I have made my own views on this matter sufficiently clear.

Twitter joke trial - conviction quashed in High Court

The origins of this case go back 2 1/2 years when a man, Paul Chambers, posted a message on Twitter which read: "Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I am blowing the airport sky high!!" in relation to the closure of Robin Hood Airport in January 2010 because of adverse weather conditions. Paul Chambers had been intending to fly to Northern Ireland to meet someone he had earlier 'met' through exchanges on Twitter. No-one amongst followers who read the message soon after it was posted seems to have found the message alarming in any way, they treated it as a joke. This happened on 6th January 2010; five days later on 11th January an off-duty security employee of the airport was apparently searching at home for any mention of 'Robin Hood Airport' on Twitter and came across the 'offending' tweet and although he thought it was just a joke he reported it to his 'line manager' who thought likewise, but 'in accordance with procedure' reported it to the airport police who thought likewise also, again 'in accordance with procedure' reported it to South Yorkshire Police who, on balance, thought likewise (that it was a joke and not a credible threat, just to drive the point home), after however arresting Mr Chambers and interrogating him. Next the matter was referred by South Yorkshire Police to the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) who decided there was a case to answer. As a result Mr Chambers was charged, prosecuted and convicted at a Magistrates Court with the conviction later upheld on appeal before Doncaster Crown Court in March 2011.

The High Court has now overturned the conviction (read the full judgement of the High Court here (.pdf file)), basically because there was no criminal intention or act - in other words it was a joke.

I remember hearing about this case soon after Mr Chambers was arrested in January 2010 and thought the whole idea of him being arrested was completely ridiculous and indeed a 'joke', although of course no joke for Mr Chambers who lost his job and effectively became unemployable.

No-one involved in investigating this case, at whatever level, seems seriously to have believed that the offending tweet was anything but a joke, perhaps in poor taste, but a joke nonetheless. Nevertheless the jobsworth mentality involved in following processes dictated by 'in accordance with procedure' meant that in order for those involved to protect their own backs (read the linked article on 'jobsworth' for more on this) they had to report it on up the chain, even though none of them thought there was any credible threat or risk. Indeed in the High Court deliberations the point was made that even after the relevant tweet was noticed by the off-duty airport security employee there was no evidence of any increase in the 'threat alert' at the airport or indeed that any other action was taken at the airport as a result of the tweet. So, all these jobsworths did what the rules said they had to do, this includes the CPS, just in case, one supposes, anything untoward did occur they could not later be held to have overlooked their duties.

Until of course the High Court comes along and, rightly, concludes that Mr Chambers had contravened no law so had no case to answer.

I'm afraid I must also introduce an element of raw partisan politics into this murky affair, because this touches directly upon the freedom of expression of all of us - as is pointed out here, a climate of fear grew up (and was actively fostered by the Labour government by their deeds and actions, as exemplified by the reference to Home Office advice in the linked article, not to mention the Labour supporter being physically ejected from a Labour Party conference for heckling, which I wrote about here) which led many people to worry unnecessarily about saying what is in their minds - not just the usual and sensible prohibition on shouting "Fire!" in a crowded public place when there is not in fact a fire (or saying at the airport check-in "I have a bomb in my bag" for a joke, as another example). The quashing of Mr Chambers' conviction goes a little way toward re-establishing freedom of expression in this country! And perhaps will allow Mr Chambers to get a job, too.

"Depressed" teenager gaoled for fire-raising at Nairn harbour

An apparently 'depressed' teenage young woman, Dawn MacRae, 18, has been gaoled for 16 months (presumably to be reduced if she can find it in herself to be of good behaviour whilst in prison) for setting fire to a boat in Nairn harbour, the fire spreading to three other boats and destroying all four.

Apart from being, it seems, a bottle-a-day of vodka drunkard (although as the report puts it ironically she managed to stay 'mostly' sober for the two days prior to the trial) it is mentioned that she may have suffered some kind of sexual abuse, causing the depression and perhaps the drunkenness and if this is true then I hope she is given some kind of remedial help. On the other hand it could be that she is just an evil little ***** .

US Senate votes to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"!

I break my blog hiatus briefly to report on the historic votes today in the US Senate, earlier to defeat a fillibuster motion sponsored by Republicans (63/33) and later to vote for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (65/31); the US House of Representatives had already voted for repeal. Now the bill will have to be signed into law by President Obama, but he has already indicated he will do so if presented with the bill.

Here is the full text of the statement by President Obama issued to coincide with the Senate vote for repeal:

Today, President Obama released a statement on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 - Today, the Senate has taken an historic step toward ending a policy that undermines our national security while violating the very ideals that our brave men and women in uniform risk their lives to defend. By ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” no longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans forced to leave the military, despite years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay. And no longer will many thousands more be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love. As Commander-in-Chief, I am also absolutely convinced that making this change will only underscore the professionalism of our troops as the best led and best trained fighting force the world has ever known. And I join the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the overwhelming majority of service members asked by the Pentagon, in knowing that we can responsibly transition to a new policy while ensuring our military strength and readiness. I want to thank Majority Leader Reid, Senators Lieberman and Collins and the countless others who have worked so hard to get this done. It is time to close this chapter in our history. It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed. It is time to allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country openly. I urge the Senate to send this bill to my desk so that I can sign it into law.

At long last the US joins most other liberal democracies (such as the UK, Holland, Spain and many others) in allowing all its citizens to serve openly and proudly in the military. We in the UK got rid of the ban on gays serving in the military some years ago, with absolutely no adverse-effects on military effectiveness whatsoever, despite the earlier whining of those opposed to the change. I suspect strongly that in a few years time the US experience will be precisely the same and that they will be asking themselves why they delayed so long and what all the fuss was about.

A good day!

UPDATE: (Sunday 19DEC10 09.10 GMT) Here's a BBC report with embedded video-clip of campaigners celebrating the decision.

US Senate forced to accept its writ does not extend outside the US

So the US Senate has postponed its hearing on whether BP influenced the release of Megrahi from a Scottish prison. I wrote about this last week here.

As I have written at length, I disagreed strongly and fundamentally with the decision of the Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') to release Megrahi, a convicted criminal, on grounds of 'compassion'. However, I have always accepted that it had the right to make that decision in accordance with its interpretation of Scots Law, even though that decision was entirely discretionary and wrong in my view.

Scots Law, and I am no 'Scottish nationalist' (that hardly needs saying - Ed), is not subordinate to the English 'Common Law' any more than it is to US law. Scotland has always had its own legal system, prior to and since the Act of Union with England and the fact that since 1999 there has been a devolved Scottish Parliament has not fundamentally changed anything, except that many domestic Scottish matters are now dealt with by the Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') rather than the Secretary of State for Scotland within the UK government.

What is really laughable, though, is that a few US Senators seem to think that their writ extends beyond US borders and that they can effectively coerce governments of foreign countries to appear before their committees. The posturing of a few US Senators ahead of their mid-term elections this November is of no moment to me or anyone outside the US, however interesting and indeed important (in some respects) US domestic politics may be in the wider world. I think Senator Menendez of New Jersey is playing to an audience in his home State ahead of elections, and good luck to him - but it is of absolutely no consequence to our Scottish devolved administration, nor indeed to the UK government, which has, as politely as they can, told he and his colleagues to 'get knotted'. I do not agree with the decision to release Megrahi, but I agree completely with the decision of the Scottish Executive to decline Senator Menendez's 'summons' as completely outrageous. The US Senate can of course hold whatever hearings it cares to, and Senator Menendez can verbally 'stamp his feet' in frustration all he likes, it really is none of my business, but neither he nor the US Senate can compel or coerce the government of a foreign country to submit to its authority; it really is that simple.

The Megrahi release saga rumbles on ...

I'm not going to rehash the arguments for or against releasing Megrahi last year, a decision taken by the Justice Secretary in the Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government'), Mr Kenny MacAskill MSP; I thought then and think still that the decision was both wrong and foolish. My articles written at the time on the matter give my detailed view of the matter:

- Scotland sends a convicted murderer home "to die" (20AUG2009)
- Bill's not popular in some quarters locally it seems (22AUG2009)
- Majority 'oppose' Megrahi release (28AUG2009)
- My absolutely final word on the al-Megrahi release saga (01SEP2009)

Now that final article linked to above, written on 1st September last year, might be thought to be contradicted by this present article, but in fact it is not because this article is on a whole other aspect of this saga, relating to judicial and constitutional territoriality. However, before continuing this article I think it useful to quote the final two sentences from my last article above:

"Whatever we may think of the decision by Mr MacAskill, it was made in good faith I have no doubt (if in my view for misguided reasons), but it is done and cannot be reversed. We must now live with the consequences, whatever they are."

At the time of the release the US authorities expressed their view opposing the release very vociferously, but as I wrote in the first article linked to above "We have our legal system and they have their's and they have done many things in recent years which have been found by many in this country to be revolting or merely unjust in recent years, and precious little notice have they taken of the views and sensibilities of what is supposed to be their closest ally in the world."

In recent weeks a US Senate hearing has been taking place into the oil-spill in the Gulf of Mexico involving oil company BP, a company with strong British links historically, even though it is today a truly multinational conglomerate with a large proportion of its shareholding outside the UK, with US shareholders holding a very significant stake in the company. It has been suggested by some US Senators that there may be a connection between the release of Megrahi and a deal agreed with the Libyan authorities by BP. Now these US Senators have 'invited' Mr MacAskill and the Scottish Prison Service's medical chief Dr Andrew Fraser to travel to Washington to give evidence before the US Senate hearing. The Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') has declined this 'invitation'. Also invited are Mr Jack Straw MP, former UK Justice Secretary and Mr Tony Hayward, BP chief executive, neither of whom have yet announced a decision on this matter. It will be recalled that Mr Hayward recently gave evidence before the US Senate in connection with the Gulf of Mexico oil-spill.

My view is very strongly that no official of the Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') should attend the US Senate hearing. I am no friend of the current ruling political party in Scotland, the SNP, nor do I care for the First Minister, Mr Alex Salmond MP MSP, but I watched him being interviewed earlier today on BBC News on the matter and have to say I agree completely with his analysis, which followed very closely the statement issued by a spokesperson on behalf of his administration:

"Since the Lockerbie atrocity in 1988, all matters regarding the investigation, prosecution and compassionate release decision have been conducted according to the jurisdiction and laws of Scotland. "Clearly, the Senate Committee has responsibility to scrutinise decisions taken within the US system, and Scottish ministers and public officials are accountable within the Scottish Parliament system. That is the constitutional basis of our democracies. "The Scottish Parliament's justice committee has already undertaken a full inquiry into the decision on compassionate release, and the Westminster Scottish affairs committee has also examined the issue in terms of the formal inter-governmental relations that exist within the UK. That is right and proper."

The US is a close ally of the UK (which includes Scotland), but the two are completely separate countries and it would seem to me totally invidious, on principle, for any official of a UK government or a devolved part of the UK such as Scotland, to accept or imply acceptance of the jurisdiction of a foreign country. I cannot imagine any official of the US Federal Government or one of the US States agreeing to give evidence before a Parliamentary Committee in the UK, nor would it be correct for them to accept such an obligation - the furore that that would arise in the US amongst the public there were such testimony to be offered by any US public official before the parliament of a foreign country, even of a close ally such as the UK, would be intense and entirely justified.

The Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') has stated its willingness to supply further written evidence to the US Senate and that is as much as the US Senate can expect, indeed my view is that even this is too much. I may disagree strongly with the decision taken by Mr MacAskill, but it is clear that he took that decision with due regard to Scots Law; that is the end of the matter so far as I am concerned.

Finally, the comments made by Labour's Holyrood justice spokesman Richard Baker, to the effect that it was "perfectly legitimate" for US senators to ask Mr MacAskill to travel to Washington and answer questions are in my view completely wrong-headed and betray a complete lack of understanding of the constitutional issues involved, specifically relating to the sovereignty of the UK; I have no love for the SNP, but it is immensely pleasing that the Labour Party is no longer in power in either Scotland or Westminster if this is the care and attention they give to this country's status as an independent country; of course Labour is the political party that when in government agreed the unequal US/UK Extradition Treaty 2003 with the US, so they have 'form' in their dereliction of national duty.

Ireland gets civil partnership law

Irish President Mary McAleese yesterday signed into law the country's Civil Partnership Bill, after having been approved by the Seanad ('Senate') by 48 votes to 4 on 9th July after having been passed by the Dáil ('Parliament') the previous week.

According to the linked article the Bill cannot take full effect until 'commensurate changes take place in social welfare, tax and pensions legislation' and that relevant changes in the 'Finance Bill and Social Welfare Bill [will be] drafted following December’s budget'. All this means that Civil Partnerships are likely to begin in Ireland only at the beginning of 2011.

I last wrote about Ireland's plans to legislate for 'civil partnerships' in January 2008 and at that time it was thought that the legislation might come into force at the end of that year; in the event it has taken much longer, but the change is of course extremely pleasing, however delayed it has been.

ECHR judgement against UK government on Terrorism Act 2000 s44 'stop and search' abuses

Where would we be without the excellent Spy Blog which does it usual sterling job of highlighting the failings (and the malign policies) of our current shambles of a government - shambolic and authoritarian to boot!

As Spy Blog correctly mentions (as I have pointed out here and in comments elsewhere many times over the years) the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is NOT a body within the EU (the European Court of Justice fulfils that role). The ECHR has ruled against the UK government for its systematic abuse of human rights by its use of the Section 44 'stop and search' provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 without reasonable cause and is thus in contravention of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The abuse has occurred against photographers, tourists, trainspotters and, amazingly, Members of Parliament.

Will our government pay a blind bit of notice to this ruling (any more than it has to the ruling about the retention of the DNA samples of innocent people, which it lost over a year ago)? We badly need an election to rid ourselves of our dictatorial and, I don't believe I am being in any way melodramatic when I add 'proto-fascist' government, with its [unfortunately rather successful] efforts to turn the UK into a Police State.

Executions of British citizens abroad and the extradition of British citizens

Let's be clear about this, I am strongly oppposed to the use of capital punishment (i.e. state executions) under any circumstances. Such judicial punishments are formally prohibited in the UK and throughout the whole of the European Union and in many other countries, too.

However, the writ of the British government and of the European Union is severely limited. Other countries have quite a different view (and laws to back it up) on the whole topic of capital punishment - notably the US, Iran and China, to name three, albeit three of the better-known (not to say 'notorious') examples.

Today a British citizen has been executed in China, having been convicted of drug smuggling. The fact that he was smuggling drugs seems not to be in doubt. It is contended by those who pleaded for clemency in his case that he was 'tricked' into carrying a suitcase containing 4 kilos of heroin into China. Some trick! It is further contended that the executed man was mentally unstable and that his [undoubted] crime should be judged in the light of this. To put it crudely, we are being asked to accept that being mentally unstable should be a 'free pass' to commit crimes in other countries and not suffer the punishments that those other countries consider appropriate. Try telling that to the US (or Iran) the next time it executes someone on what we consider ill-judged grounds and see how much notice it takes!

Quite frankly the British government has enough trouble on its hands with its [perfectly deplorable] habit of trashing our own legal system and diminishing the rights of UK citizens within our own borders (things over which it actually has some control), without trying to 'lecture' other countries how they should run their own judicial systems.

Whilst I deplore today's judicial exceution of Mr Akmal Shaikh in China, I do wish the British government would use its political capital on things over which it actually can have some influence, rather than making empty gestures in matters where it succeeds only in making itself (and us) look silly and ineffectual. I refer specifically to the case of Gary McKinnon, a British citizen currently under threat of extradition to the USA and which our own Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, says he has no power to halt on medical grounds. Remind me, which British government was it who committed us to a decidely lop-sided Extradition Treaty with the US? Oh yes, our present Labour government!

Both Mr Akmal Shaikh and Mr Gary McKinnon have been said to have been (in the case of the former) and be (in the case of the latter) suffering from schizophrenia (i.e. what is I understand also known as a 'bipolar disorder') - see (*) below. So it is OK to send Mr McKinnon across the Atlantic to the [not always so very] tender mercies of the US judicial system, because the US is supposedly a fellow-democracy, albeit the country that permitted Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib to happen (with its use of 'water torture' and other, to put it brutally frankly, crimes against humanity), but not OK for a sovereign country such as China, which happens not to conform to our 'prissy' notions of democracy, to follow its own judicial path?

Or what about our oh-so-ethical British government that allowed our knee-jerk unequal Extradition Treaty with the US, supposedly designed to help reduce the risk of terrorism, to be subverted by using it to allow US authorities to pursue British citizens whose only 'crime' (if it is ever judged as such) was against a British company in Britain? I refer of course to the 'NatWest three' who were extradited some time ago to the US on frankly spurious charges (so far as the US is concerned) seemingly with the sole aim of using pressure upon them to get them to implicate others.

Basically we have a British government that makes loud noises about protecting British citizens' rights in situations which it cannot alter, but singularly fails to protect the rights of British citizens when it has the power to do so. And we wonder why some Chinese refer to Britain as a 'paper tiger', or why Britain has today been told by Iran's government that it will have its 'cheeks boxed' if it doesn't shut up?

Why does our current British government even bother? It has, quite frankly, not the faintest notion of what conducting an effective dipolmatic policy entails and its notions of an 'ethical foreign policy' make me want to retch! If the actions of our present Labour government did not make us all, in Britain, look so silly and pathetic I could laugh if it concerned some other poorly-governed country, rather than our own - as it is, all I want to do is have a drink to deaden the horror of being led by such donkeys!

Now to calm myself down after my rather too habitual (of late) 'ranting' against our ineffectual shambles of a Government, may I just remind my fellow British citizens that the ability of our government to protect us when we are abroad is very strictly limited; we no longer live in an era when 'gunboat diplomacy' will be used to rescue us when we do, or are accused of doing, something wrong according to another country. I've visited and lived in a number of coutries which have very different notions to us on matters of crime and justice, including both China and (just to take a couple of other random examples) Malaysia and Thailand. I vividly recall the landing form I had to complete the first time I visited Kuala Lumpur and which bore a red-printed warning about the punishment for 'drug-trafficking' being death; I knew about this beforehand, so I wasn't surprised, but it still came as something of a shock to see it in print. The definition of 'trafficking' was for amounts in excess of 50 grams, if I recall correctly, just as in China. Four kilograms is eighty times greater than that!

Put simply, if you can't do the time (or suffer the consequences, however unfair we may consider them to be) don't do the crime! It really is that simple. Otherwise stay at home.

(*) - a commenter has kindly corrected what I wrote about the mental disorder from which the executed man was said to have suffered; the commenter writes "No. Bipolar is what used to be known as manic depression. Schizophrenia is a level of mania well beyond." However, I do not believe this affects the basic premise of my article.

Four decades after the Sexual Offences Act this kind of nonsense still happens?!

We are told often that life is so much easier for homosexual people in the UK now than it was pre-1967 when the Sexual Offences Act partially decriminalised homosexual acts in private and I am sure it is, even if I don't have relevant personal memories of the period before this, having been only about 15 years old at the time. However, every so often something happens that brings me up with a jolt. Some joker in Portsmouth thought he could make a 'fast buck' by pretending to be an undercover police sergeant and making blackmailing married men 'cruising' in a gay haunt a lucrative proposition, by extracting 'instant fines' from them. The apparently genuine threat of the 'shame' of a court appearance on charges of 'gross indencency' made some of the men involved willing to hand over several hundred pounds each. Presumably one of his potential victims decided to go to the real police (who mostly react somewhat differently now than they would have 40 years ago), leading to Lee Creamer (aka 'Sergeant Perry') being gaoled at Portsmouth Crown Court for three and a half years. Judge Peter Henry correctly summed-up this despicable individual:

"The people you were targeting undoubtedly would have been in that frame of mind where they weren't going to think straight. You were relying on the fact they were going to panic and pay the money."

Even though homosexuality was decriminalised quite a long time ago, many gay men (and women) are still reluctant to 'own' who they are, so leaving themselves open to this kind of nonsense. To some extent this is understandable because however 'right on' we may like to kid oursleves that Britain is today, there are still a lot of prejudiced people around who don't hesitate to make life difficult for gay people if they think they can get away with it (just remind yourself how successful a number of major religions are in having their prejudices accepted and in a number of cases enshrined in law). Whilst this is in some respects a depressingly familiar type of case, at least it has a 'happy' outcome - the culptrit has been brought to book.

Child migrants and the 'apologies'

I've known about the programme to transfer 'British stock' from the UK to Australia, at least partly in support of Australia's 'White Australia' policy at the time, for quite a few years. It always seemed to me to be, when I first heard with incredulity what had been done and made an effort to find out a little more about it, a discreditable period in the history of both the UK and Australia. As I write this, we are just waiting in the next hour for an announcement in Canberra from Australian Prime Minister Rudd, in which he is expected to issue an apology to the migrant children on behalf of the Australian Government and nation. Other countries in the 'white Commonwealth', for example Canada, were also recipients of these children I gather.

It is thought that our own Prime Minister may issue a similar apology on behalf of the British Government and nation in the near future, too. It is possible also that the claims for compensation from some of the now middle-aged to elderly migrants may be granted. It seems clear that at least some of the children were lied to at the time when they were told that their parents had died so there was no home for them to return to; the children involved were I understand almost entirely inhabitants at the time of orphanages in the UK, for various reasons. It is certainly clear that many of the children did not go to the 'better lives' that had been held out to them as their future, but to be treated as little better than indentured labour in low-grade jobs in remote spots of a strange land from which they had no way out; some were also abused in various ways, it seems. The educational opportunities afforded them were also, at best, mediocre in many cases it seems, thus consigning them to the likelihood of limited futures.

I've read in a few blogs today varying opinions about the merits of issuing an apology, mostly negative, on the basis that any apology of this nature is hollow because the present government and Prime Minister is certainly not responsible for what was done in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. This is undoubtedly completely true; I don't like Labour or Gordon Brown, but even I would admit readily that it has nothing to do with today's Labour Party or our current Prime Minister persnally. Any more than Australian PM Kevin Rudd can in any way be considered responsible at a personal level, nor can the present Australian government.

Some recent apologies issued in various countries have indeed been largely meaningless, because they touched on matters which are now so far back in history that no one living today has any personal memory of the activities for which the apologies were being issued - for example slavery in the US, or the treatment of some native Americans by the US government.

However, many of the 'victims' of the child migration policy are still very much alive, as are one imagines many of the public and elected officials in both the UK and Australia who were responsible for putting the policy in place, as well I expect as many of those organisations, such as charities in both countries, who were charged with carrying out the policy. So an apology by both governments is not in any way meaningless to those involved, particularly the children affected by the policy. The same might be said of the apology some years ago by the US government in respect of US citizens during World War II who were of Japanese origin and who were, after 'Pearl Harbour', interned by the US authorities; many of the US citizens of Japanese origin were 2nd or 3rd generation US-born.

In summary, my view is that an apology today by Rudd and/or Brown is not a hollow gesture, but a necessary correction of a seriously defective, cruel and fundamentally wicked policy even if in theory it was not totally 'evil' in intent, whilst accepting (as I do) that it was undertaken with motives which rest on somewhat shaky moral ground. Mind you such politically-motivated migrations have occurred often in human history, some in quite recent times (e.g. the encouragement given to Metropolitan French to colonise Algeria when it was under French control, or the similar encoouragement given by the British Government for British citizens to colonise Kenya when it was a British colony. Today there is an even greater ongoing migration of people which has been going on for some years with the migrants concerned being strongly encouraged (not to say shoved on boats and planes) to move - I am speaking about the policy of the Indonesian government to ease the over-population on the island of Java by shipping large numbers of people to the much less densely-populated islands of Sumatra, Kalimantan and Sulawesi as well as various other islands in the Indonesian archipelago; Sumatra for example, being much closer to neighbour Malaysia is in theory at risk, over the longer term, of territorial incurson because of its abundant natural resources, as well as of internal political dissension because of the ethnic make-up of its own population. There are many sources of information about this - see here and here for example, not to mention the related potential extraordinary project discussed here.

To come back, though, to the child migration from the UK to Australia I am currently (16NOV 00.15 GMT) watching the live apology from Australian PM Rudd in a large hall before a great number of the affected migrants and their families; a very moving occasion indeed.

Finally, I have absolutely no personal stake in this issue, but ever since I first became aware of this UK-Australia child migration project in the post-war period I have been troubled by some memories from my early childhood. At the first primary school I attended, which was in the Newhaven area of Edinburgh (we, my brother and I, lived in a distant part of Edinburgh, but made the journey across the city each day to attend this school for reaons we needn't go into here) and one of my class-mates and friends from when I first went there (a few months before my 5th birthday) until I was about 7 1/2 was a boy who was an orphan and who lived in a Barnardo's home not far away from the school. Occasionally I would visit the home with him after school (they were apparently encouraged to have friends visit) and as a child I thought no more about it; he was simply a class-mate and someone whom I liked as a school-friend; without being immodest we were probably the two cleverest boys in our class. Anyway, one day he didn't turn up at school and I asked the teacher where he was - she said he had 'gone away'. A few days later I decided to visit the home to ask after him and can still remember (I was less than 8 then) the seeming 'evasion' in the response I got. Of course he may simply have gone back to his real family, but I have occasionally wondered, since I heard about the migration policy sometime in the 1980s, if he might have been one of those involved. I'm afraid I do not even remember my friend's name, so it is unlikely I would ever be able to find out what did happen to him. At the time, of course, I had no real idea of anything to do with such matters - I doubt if I really had any idea about where places I had seen on maps, such as America, Canada, India, South Africa or Australia, were. Happy and generally contented as my childhood was, this is one minor niggle that I occasionally ponder on - today's apology in Australia has brought this whole subject back into my consciousness; the time-frame I am recalling is the period from about mid-1957 to late-1959, so it is certainly within the relevant dates when this policy was in force.

Randy Wearside woman told to cut the noise during sex

A couple in Washington on Wearside (near Newcastle-upon-Tyne) have been making a nuisance of themselves with the VERY LOUD noises they make when having sex on a very regular basis and for hours on end. Caroline and Steve Cartwright are obviously a very 'compatible' couple, with voracious sexual appetites - but Newcastle Crown Court is not impressed, any more than are the postman, neighbours or a woman taking her child to school. Dismissing her claim under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (concerning "respect for her private and family life"), Recorder Jeremy Freedman said:

"We are in no doubt whatsoever about the level of noise that can be heard in neighbouring properties, in the street and in the back lane. "It certainly was intrusive and constituted a statutory nuisance. It was clearly of a very disturbing nature and it was also compounded by the duration - this was not a one-off, it went on for hours at a time. "It is further compounded by the frequency of the episode, virtually every night."

These folk are obviously veritable athletes in the bedroom! It's not over yet - she'll be up in court again in December in connection with the alleged breaches of her ASBO 'awarded' because of the racket.

(This marvellous story came to me courtesy of an article in the Gay Banker blog)

Baroness Scotland - am I being more than usually dense?

I just don't get this story at all. It is being said that Baroness Scotland did not 'knowingly' employ a person with no legal right to BE in the UK, never mind the right to work there (I write 'there' rather than 'here' because I am currently in Spain, by the way).

Either the lady (the lady of Tongan nationality formerly employed by Baroness Scotland) was in the UK legally or not and eligible to work in the UK or not. The fact that Baroness Scotland checked or did not check her documents does not alter these basic facts, or does it?

This aspect of the affair is, it seems to me, independent of whether Baroness Scotland herself verified her employee's documents and found them to be in order, but failed to keep photocopies of them. It seems to me that if the Tongan lady was in fact in the UK legally and elegible to work, then not taking the photocopies required by the law (in a Bill piloted through Parliament by Lady Scotland herself, so she might have been expected to know what it contained) could be excused as a simple oversight and perhaps subject to a fine.

But from what I've read and heard about this affair over the past several days it seems that the Tongan lady's visa to work here had expired SOME YEARS AGO and that she had worked for Baroness Scotland much more recently, well after its expiry. To say that she did check her employee's documents and saw nothing wrong is stretching [my] credulity way beyond breaking-point. I do not see how she or her apologists within the Labour hierarchy can continue to state with any credibility that she DID check the lady's documents and still did not 'knowingly' employ an illegal immigrant. The fact that she paid tax and National Insurance contributions is, in this context, beside the point.

The reason people hire employees who are in a country without the required documents can generally be traced back to one simple factor - money, and being able to pay them less than a person here legally.

I would like to know:
- a timeline for when the Tongan lady arrived in the UK and when her legal right to remain and work in the UK expired;
- a timeline for when Baroness Scotland employed and subsequently dismissed her employee;
- the hourly rate the employee was being paid and whether it complied with the legal minimum wage in force at the time;
- comparable hourly wage rates for employees in the the same part of London for those doing similar work.

I think the answers to all these questions would illustrate just how devoted Baroness Scotland and her Party are to observing the law and dealing with epmployees fairly.

Personally I think that the detail of the law that Lady Scotland contravened, by not taking the required photocopies of documents, is rather 'draconian', like a lot of Labour legislation, seeimngly designed to trap the unwary who are normally given a far rougher time than someone who happens to be part of Labour's hierarchy and who is in this instance the person who actually argued forcefully for this law and its detailed requirements to be passed into law.

She should not only be fined, but resign or be sacked.

My absolutely final word on the al-Megrahi release saga

There has been a lot of fall-out from the release of the release of al-Megrahi back to Libya and that fall-out may not be over as yet. However, there is an article in today's Times newspaper by the leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, that lays out pretty clearly what happened; three brief extracts:

"Decisions concerning the fate of criminals, not least those responsible for mass murder, often provoke widespread public anger. But the outrage at this one has crossed continents and damaged our relationship with our closest ally, America. It has been a fiasco. "At its heart lies a series of failure of judgment. The first failure was the decision by Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, to release al-Megrahi on “compassionate grounds”. Due process found al-Megrahi guilty, a verdict upheld on appeal. The Libyan Government accepted responsibility for the bombing and paid compensation to the Lockerbie families. Any doubts about the safety of al-Megrahi’s conviction should have been tested by the second appeal, which he instead withdrew. That is why I said that compassionate release was completely inappropriate. We are dealing here with someone convicted of one of the biggest mass murders in British history. Al-Megrahi’s victims were not allowed the luxury of “dying at home”. What on earth was Mr MacAskill thinking of when he made this utterly bizarre decision?" Then: "The second misjudgment was Gordon Brown’s failure to speak up clearly and promptly. On a matter fraught with such emotion, and with the potential to damage Britain’s reputation abroad, a decisive lead from the Prime Minister was required." And finally: "The Government needs to understand that it cannot reject this as an overhyped summer story and dismiss these suspicions out of hand. This issue goes to the core of how this Government operates. Unless these suspicions are properly put to rest, the al-Megrahi case will mark another damning chapter in the sorry history of Labour’s years in power."

- the whole article merits close study I think. I don't pretend to agree with everything that David Cameron has done so far, or that he seems to be planning should he become Prime Minister fairly soon (increasingly likely, on present trends, I'd say), but I have to say that those, both on the left of politics and on the gerontocrat-wing of the Conservative party itself, who declare Cameron to be 'light-weight' or 'shallow' seem to me to be way off-beam. That man is no light-weight and I think his clear-sightedness in this case makes that abundantly clear.

Almost done. Two articles in the Spectator's Coffee House are useful to read, too (here and here) - it is clear that Labour's connection to what happened is not as 'hands off' as they would have us believe. My earlier articles on the release are here, here and here.

Of course it's his interpretation, which I happen to agree with. A lot of people, particularly supporters of one of the political parties in Scotland (the governing Party here which made the decision to release al-Megrahi), disagree strongly with that view. Whatever we may think of the decision by Mr MacAskill, it was made in good faith I have no doubt (if in my view for misguided reasons), but it is done and cannot be reversed. We must now live with the consequences, whatever they are.

Majority 'oppose' Megrahi release

An ICM/YouGov survey poll in Scotland has revealed that a very significant majority of Scots opposed the release of convicted Pan-Am bomber Abdel Basset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi from a Scottish prison, because of his advanced prostate cancer, so that he could return to Libya 'to die' with his family. I wrote my view of the release here (I was strongly opposed) and followed it up with another article a couple of days later, to respond to some of the anonymous vitriol I had received through the comments in another local blog as a result of my stated view (which I stand by still, incidentally).

The just-published opinion poll reveals that my views on this matter are not in any way atypical of the majority of Scots, despite efforts by certain SNP politicians and apologists for the policies of that political party (mainly those who themselves share the political aims of the SNP) to use relentless 'spin' to try and show that it was their view that had majority public support. It didn't and it doesn't! Just as the public support for the SNP itself has taken a well-deserved beating compared to the position it held in the opinion polls a year ago.

Scotland sends a convicted murderer home "to die"

(Please see UPDATE at end)

I watched poor Kenny MacAskill MSP (Scottish Justice Secretary in the SNP Scottish Executive) stand up today and spend a tediously long period trying to justify the unjustifiable. I have to say that whilst watching him read out his statement I had a sneaking admiration for his even delivery and stamina - as if he thought that D..R..A..G..G..I..N..G out his statement for so long would confuse the issue.

If the verdict of guilty against Megrahi is unsafe, as some seem to believe, then the evidence against him needs to be re-examined carefully and dispassionately - and this could have been done many years ago if there was any substance to it; indeed two appeals have taken place already and been rejected. If his conviction was not unsafe, in other words if he was correctly convicted, then I think his sentence of life imprisonment should have meant just that. Until his conviction is overturned, for me he is guilty - and for Kenny MacAskill, too, on the basis of what he took so long to say today.

So, according to Mr MacAskill we in Scotland let people out of prison because they're going to die imminently, out of 'compassion'. I wrote my views about that here, when I made a passing reference to the Megrahi case. They are no different today now that the Megrahi case has hit the headlines. What about the people who were killed when that aeroplane blew up over Lockerbie - they didn't get to go home to die with their families! Nor for that matter, I expect, do other convicted criminals who happen to die of old age, or a heart attack, or a stroke, whilst in prison. We are all going to die some day - it's part of human existence, indeed of every living creature. The fact that someone happens to be dying of some incurable disease in prison does not make them any more deserving of 'compassion' than any other criminal serving a prison sentence who happens to be going to die there.

MacAskill waffled on for ages trying to confuse the issue by dragging out his decision not to grant release under the Prisoner Transfer Scheme with Libya agreed by the UK government, when the Scottish Executive (aka 'Government') had sought an exemption for Scotland for any Lockerbie convictee (i.e. Megrahi), when that decision had no bearing - apart from trying to make yet another tedious political propaganda point in the SNP's campaign to sow dissent wiith the UK government - on the decision he took to release Megrahi on grounds of 'compassion', saying it was in a noble Scottish tradition. It's not one I've ever heard of. My analysis of this is that it is yet another example of the SNP Scottish Executive playing yet another cyncial game to try and wrong-foot the UK Government by strutting its devolved power before the world. Mind you it's no different than the cackeyed reasons Jack Straw, UK Justice Secretary, gave for releasing Biggs 'to die'. I'd rather MacAskill and Straw excercised compassion in their own time, not on my behalf. Pass the sick bag, Alice!

And we have, as any fool could have predicted, this criminal being given a hero's welcome back in Libya and using our Scottish Saltire as part of a crude propaganda exercise. Well done Mr MacAskill! I'll need that sick bag again, Alice!

PS/ To me, just to be clear, it's completely irrelevant that the US government objected vociferously to the prospect of Megrahi being sent back to Libya. We have our legal system and they have their's and they have done many things in recent years which have been found by many in this country to be revolting or merely unjust in recent years, and precious little notice have they taken of the views and sensibilities of what is supposed to be their closest ally in the world. The fact that there is a different Administration in the US today has not changed the fact that Guantanamo remains open and that the US is, many believe, still consigning people they capture to treatment that wouldn't be tolerated on US soil. I am very pro-American, but rank hypocrisy makes me heave!

UPDATE: (Sunday 23AUG09 14.10 BST) One of the other Nairn bloggers, Graisg, kindly wrote a brief article in his blog to alert his readers to my article; he expressed no view about what I had written. I placed a comment in his comment for that article to thank him for high-lighting my blog (obviously it has increased 'hits' here, specially from local people, although most of the 'hits' seem anyway to have come from the US). However, a number of the comments there were, ahem, somewhat uncomplimentary about me and I planned to post my own further comment there - however Graisg had closed off comments because of the nature of some of the earlier comments (I think) so I have written a new article here, which includes word-for-word what would have been in my comment.

Are we now to release all near-death prisoners?

On 'compassionate grounds'. This would seem to be the logical extension of this piece of nonsense from our so-called Justice Secretary Jack Straw. Not to mention this other piece of nonsense, involving the convicted Libyan Pan-Am bomber, currently serving his prison sentence in Scotland.

So far as I am concerned both should continue to serve their sentences in prison or in a hospital prison ward (and in the case of al-Megrahi that should continue to be in Scotland) and their apparent imminent deaths should not be of any special interest or consideration. The answer to the question I pose in the title to this piece should of course be 'No'.

Police State Britain - Clause 152 being withdrawn

After widespread outrage across the country and opposition in Parliament from the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, the government has agreed to withdraw the highly-objectionable and unjustifiable Clause 152 of the Coroners and Justice Bill which I wrote about in January here and which, according to Justice Minister Michael Wills the government now accepts was "drawn too widely" - however, before everyone cheers too loudly, the government minister's weasel-words included the remark that it would be redrafted; Mr Wills said it was not a U-turn but the "proper process of parliamentary scrutiny" and added:

"What should happen with legislation is that the government brings it to ... Parliament and it is then scrutinised and when on occasion the opposition make a reasonable point, we respond appropriately. "In this particular case it became clear that the powers were drawn too widely. We've therefore withdrawn them and we will be redrafting them and bringing forward the powers in future."

- so the government still wants to have the powers which the withdrawn clause would have given them legislated into being using a new form of words which they hope will not 'frighten the horses' in quite the same way. The new wording, when resubmitted, will have to be scrutinised very closely to ensure that the government's obvious aim is thwarted! The 'Police State' hasn't gone away (how could it have when the Counter Terrorism Act 2008 has just come into force?!) it has only perhaps been diverted slightly. Continuing vigilance remains essential!

Harman on justice

Now there's an oxymoron if ever there was one! Here's roughly what Harriet Harman MP had to say about Sir Fred 'The Shred' Goodwin's pension arrangements on the Andrew Marr Show just now:

The courts may rule one way, but we "rule in the court of public opinion. If Sir Fred Goodwin is counting on receiving this GBP650,000- a year, then he shouldn't, because we will not allow it to stand. The Prime Minister has said it is unacceptable and therefore will not be accepted."

When pressed by Andrew Marr to clarify how a legal judgement in his favour could be overturned, she would not reveal what 'plans' the government has, but simply repeated it 'would not be allowed to stand'. Marr asked if it might require special legislation to be rushed through Parliament, but again she would not provide any clarification.

This is the kind of country that Britain now is, where a government thinks it can ride roughshod over individual rights, however odious (in some people's view) exercise of these rights may be. Of course, it may all be 'bluster', puff and wind, to try and divert attention from the calamitous situation that Harriet Harman's government has, by its meddling with the financial regulatory environment [Thanks, Gordon!] got us into, but I hope this spin won't fool too many people, other than those who depend on Labour for their continuing cushy jobs in government.

The whole point about a justice system worth the name is that it administers rules, set by Parliament, which apply to everyone - the nice and the not so nice. That's why we don't garrotte rapists and child molesters, for example, even if I imagine that many people would not moan overmuch if that fate was to befall them. Harman's naked appeal to the 'law of the pack' to whip up hatred for one individual is just one more odious example of the dreadful erosion of public morals and responsibility that Labour have led Britain into.

I have no special brief for Sir Fred Goodwin, by the way. I imagine his pension arrangements are governed by general employment law, plus whatever special contract he may have neogiated with his employer, RBS, when he took on his most recent role there, the arrangements no doubt being approved at Board level. I agree that many such special employment contracts over recent years, when one has got to know about them, have struck me as quite absurdly generous and, more crucially, one-sided - but retroactive legislation is not the way to go if we ever want to restore credibility to our corporate and regulatory systems.

PS/ Of course Harriet Harman denied, vehemently, that there is any truth in the rumours she is trying to supplant Brown as Labour leader. I leave readers to make their own judgement as to how credible her denials might be.