Why I Should Blog

I honestly didn't mean to cause such a fuss by intruding into the public sphere. My hope was, and remains, to provoke debate where there exists only slogans. So far debate has focused around my sheer existence but I hope that as time passes then what I say may overshadow my conviction. Some of the comments left on blogs have been mailed in to me and I am amazed at the variety. I must thank Iain Dale particularly for giving my existence on the web an (equivocal!) nod. From the thoughtful to the plain petty, the whole gamut of wits seems to find a place on the Web. Some comments have touched me, others have repelled me. Perhaps the following will clear up some misconceptions and help form a more informed basis for comments. I don't have direct access to the Net. My blogging is second-hand, being mailed to a friend who posts on my behalf. This may deflate those who ranted about cons having internet access, but then they should have looked at my blog before disgorging their spleen. No sound argument exists without some foundation of information. The legalities of my blogging are perfectly clear and simple, and my keepers have now accepted this fact. Such a pity they tried to stop me at all, but the petty concerns of civil servants are a mysterious realm. The legalities ultimately rest on the concept of 'rights'. This is a red rag to the True Blue, but the law is the law. One of the oddities I found in the comments is that many people argue as if the world were different. "He shouldn't have..." etc. Alas, the law says I can. The question that spears those who obviously detest me is this - many of you claim to vigorously support the law. Why, then, are you not willing to defend my right to blog? You may disagree with my having that right, but as I do, I assume that you support the law? Or is the rule of law a flexible animal, shaped to the individual’s preferences and prejudices? Many comments expressed the view that prisoners should have no rights. I'd like you to pause and consider the effects of that idea. Are prisoners to be beaten? Tortured? Starved? Denied daylight? Denied medical treatment? There is a discussion to be had about the nature, purpose and limits of punishment but that isn't furthered by trite soundbites. Let us have that discussion, from first principles. A later post will discuss the nature of 'rights' in relation to prisoners. For now, we have to work with what is, and my right to blog is a legal certainty that is unavoidable. Some comments were more interested in my biography, as if my personal qualities should determine my right to blog. This can't be proper - even the most repugnant individuals lay claim to the law; they often need it most. Even so, to help move things along, I should say more about myself. The most frequent question is, why have I served so long? The subtext I attribute to this is - am I a violent monster? Relaying the history of my sentence would bore the most assiduous blogger but I can hit the main highlights. The murder was the sole act of violence in my life. The first report stating that I would be unlikely to re-offend dates from 1982. No report has ever stated that I pose a risk to life or limb. If my having served almost 30 years gives the impression that I've been punching and kicking my way into middle age, then I have misled you. The reality is that I am an awkward man, challenging to deal with. My blog posts give you a hint of the mental grinder that my keepers have to navigate. My most potent weapon is the question "why?" Prison has the hallmarks of a totalitarian state, and no dictator easily accepts being questioned. For being a pain in the arse, attributes are thrown upon me. Specifically, if I can't comply with the prison rules, why should it be believed that I will comply with the laws outside? Not that I'm anti authority. I am anti abuse of authority, which in this closed world is rampant. That I challenge the stupidity of my keepers doesn't imply that I will run riot on release but that argument has kept me inside for 20 years past my punishment phase of 10 years. Anyone who is familiar with the management of lifers will recognise the phrase "mushroom management" kept in the dark and fed on shit. This explanation doubtless raises further questions. Some comments question whether I am reformed, remorseful. Both of these will be the subject of future posts. For the moment, I will say that I was shocked that I had killed, and repelled by what I had done. All of my life I will struggle to make meaningful amends for a crime for which there can be no forgiveness. Nonviolence is in my bones. Just because I refuse to take unending crap from those who detest me doesn't mean that I am unremorseful. It just means that I am human. My appreciation of what I have done is deepened by the fact that I too suffer the loss of a member of my family to needless violence. My sister was hit by a distracted, lazy driver. She was left lying in the road with a broken spine; it took being hit by several more cars to finally kill her. The perpetrator of this confessed but was never charged. The pain of her death lives with me and merges in some complex emotional way with the knowledge of what I did to my victim. I understand the visceral anger and hatred that grows in victims of crime, which is why I previously argued that victims should not be allowed to dictate policy. The propriety of my blogging is also affected by my sentence status. As I will explain in other posts, the punishment part of my sentence was 10 years. Low for murder, due to my age. Since then, I am legally detained on the basis that I may pose a risk in future. Given that my punishment has long ended, why should I be denied secondary access to the blogosphere? On what rational basis? My apologies for this being so lengthy. I hope that this is helpful to some people.