Monday, May 24, 2010

Nosey Buggers

The Judge who chaired my Parole Board hearing, just long enough to abandon it, has issued his official list of demands. Amongst other things, he wants "further information on Mr Gunn's blog and whether and how this is monitored".

Interesting. The test for my continued detention is whether I pose a "more than minimal risk to life or limb".

What possible connection is there between this legal test and this blog? Or is this a rare glimpse into a more sinister agenda?


  1. Those in authority invariably reveal their true colours. The "further information" referred to by the Parole Board judge is obviously a veiled threat, as well as a subtle attempt to place checks on your freedom of speech.

    My advice is that, as hard as it may be, keep on blogging and keep on fighting.

  2. Omg, this is scary, there is nothing legal about it. To think this as a legitimate legal request is stretching it too far.

    Since when has reading and writing been considered illegal?

    It reminds me of Francois Truffault's famous film 'Farenheit 451', a futuristic drama about the outlawing of books. The people overcame this by the end of the film by verbally reciting the most famous and precious texts and then verbally teaching them by rote and with love and emotion to the children.

    The moral of the story then is that you can't keep a good man down boys, remember that.

  3. OMG! WTF?! And various other TLAs indicating righteous indignation and anger.

    Keep fighting Ben. We're all behind you.

    The law is an

  4. If I may be the annoying one who plays devil's advocate...

    Perhaps they feel that your blog might give them more of an insight into your mind/situation?

    For example if your blog was just an online hitlist of all the people you were going to beat up and all the stuff you were going to nick then they might take that into consideration.

    As it is I think your blog is a very strong argument for your release - here's hoping they read it and reach the same conclusion as me!

    That being said, i'm not going to claim I would be surprised if it was something more dodgy.

    Best of luck either way.

  5. P.s. Sophie, I did enjoy a little friendly chuckle at the irony of you refering to 'Farenheit 451' as a film, rather than the original book.

  6. If the judge actually did read the blog, that might count in your favour.

    Unfortunately I suspect it'll be a case of "ZOMG how can this Terrible Thing be allowed to go on?!??". I hope it doesn't come to that.

  7. oh noes, der! @ Tom, I knew Farenheit 451 was also a book, although you would never have guessed that I knew already. However I was not sure whether the title of the book was the same as the film or different, maybe you could enlighten me on that one? Also the books author escapes me as well; hence I mentioned the film only. And I really love Francois Truffault's (spelling?) films, that one (Farenheit 451)I thought relevant to mention here.

  8. Dear lordy. Utterly stunned. While I can see Tom's point, I am incredibly curious to know what Ben would have to write before it was considered an issue. I suspect the answer is, something a lot less significant than might be deemed reasonable by others.

    It would be nice to think the Judge would read the blog, but I suspect that task will fall to someone else, in which case I offer a friendly 'Hello', and a request to please try to take the blinkers off...

  9. I guess it comes down to what this judge is looking for in a rehabilitated mind. If it's cowed sycophancy he's after your goose is cooked, Ben. But if he reckons feisty fairmindedness to be a fine attribute in a free man, then he will give you a green flag. After all, this is the attribute most highly prized among judges.

    Come on, judge, get him out of there!

  10. Hello Ben

    I respect the honesty and frankness in your blog. Although I do wonder if just recently you're willingly or unwittingly acting as the master of your own downfall by goading the delicate sensibilities of those people who hold your fate in their hands. If you are doing this then those advising/ counselling you are letting you down, in my opinion.

    You have hit very briefly on being diagnosed with bipolar disorder. I too have this 'label'. I understand the impulsivity that comes with it and the 'high' that can be sustained by playing cat and mouse with figures of authority.

    There are some games the mouse can never win; I've learnt it's best sometimes to let the cat pass on by. It will ALWAYS be a cat, after all.

    If I were to take the armchair Freudian position, I'd suggest you are subconsciously scuttling your own ship because you fear release.

    That would be a tragedy and this might all turn out to be another regret that'll feed the next 'bipolar low'.

    I make these points intuitively of course. I accept I could be way off target.

    Take care. And remember the mindfulness!

  11. This really is beyond a joke. If the judge wishes to get in touch with me I'll volunteer to serve any time that may be owing because of blogging activities.

  12. Tread carefully, my friend.

  13. If Tom is right (or perhaps even if he's not), perhaps a minor censoring of one of this months earlier posts?

    We all know what you meant, and I know that's an anathema to free speech and your rights as a human being, but perhaps best not to give them unnecessary ammunition?

    And of course, delete this comment afterwards!

  14. Wigarse, which one?!


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.