There comes a moment when a critical mass is reached, and having learned that a thoroughly decent bloke here is added to the list of those being ravaged by cancer, that point is now. We are having an outbreak of bloody cancer!
For the regular readers, I can tell you that the original Cancer Boy is doing reasonably well. He looks obscenely healthy most days and we mock him, saying if he wants our sympathy he should look far worse! The entity devouring his internals has undergone a couple of rounds of chemo and whilst refusing to surrender, has not grown worse of late. The diagnosis remains terminal, but the date of the memorial service has become rather more fluid.
My own tests, exploring my fractious prostate, kidneys and now liver, continue.
It is the nightmare of many lifers to suffer from a major illness and, worse, to suffer the final indignity of dying in captivity. The prison service makes some effort to avoid that eventuality, with many spending their last days in a hospice. Please don't mistake this for compassion. If a prisoner dies in custody, there are official investigations. Chuck him on the street to die and the institution is free and clear. Cynicism comes with this sentence, I'm afraid.
And since the Al Magrahi and Ronnie Biggs fiascos, terminal both but clinging on endlessly, Jack Straw changed the rules for compassionate release. Being about to die isn't enough any more. Now you also have to demonstrate that remaining in prison actively damages your health. Um, how do you do that? And why should dying prisoners have to pay the price for Jack's political embarrassment?
Showing posts with label Jack Straw. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jack Straw. Show all posts
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Sir David Latham
And Lo! the Heavens opened, and Truth poured forth... All of us involved with criminal justice and the parole board have always known that they could be flighty creatures, prone to shifting in the face of the Government of the day.
This is despite the fact that the parole board is claimed to be independent, a claim even upheld by "the prisoners' friend", the European Court of Human Rights.
But now, at last, the Chair of the parole board has made public what we all knew in private - that the Board has been keeping people in prison longer than necessary. Sir David Latham has blown their cover, confessing that the Board has been making decisions about release based upon the wrath of the media and government rather than the character of the prisoner sat in front of them.
I was one of the many who was burned in this process of abrogating professional and personal responsibility. If the Board had held its nerve against the media then I would have been released a couple of years ago (this episode is covered in my post, "How to serve 30 years").
Note that whilst Sir David makes a long overdue confession, there is no suggestion that he should apologise. Both to you for wasting your money in paying Board members to do their job and for the ton of cash it has cost you to keep some of us inside longer than necessary. And to some of us prisoners, who were slung back in our boxes for a couple more years as a result of this shameful behaviour by the Board.
Just what does it take these days before a public servant can be prompted to say, "I'm sorry"? I can only hope that my parole board in two weeks time has rediscovered its purpose and makes a decision based upon me rather than the vagaries of Jack Straw's mood-swings.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/31/parole-chief-warns-overreaction
This is despite the fact that the parole board is claimed to be independent, a claim even upheld by "the prisoners' friend", the European Court of Human Rights.
But now, at last, the Chair of the parole board has made public what we all knew in private - that the Board has been keeping people in prison longer than necessary. Sir David Latham has blown their cover, confessing that the Board has been making decisions about release based upon the wrath of the media and government rather than the character of the prisoner sat in front of them.
I was one of the many who was burned in this process of abrogating professional and personal responsibility. If the Board had held its nerve against the media then I would have been released a couple of years ago (this episode is covered in my post, "How to serve 30 years").
Note that whilst Sir David makes a long overdue confession, there is no suggestion that he should apologise. Both to you for wasting your money in paying Board members to do their job and for the ton of cash it has cost you to keep some of us inside longer than necessary. And to some of us prisoners, who were slung back in our boxes for a couple more years as a result of this shameful behaviour by the Board.
Just what does it take these days before a public servant can be prompted to say, "I'm sorry"? I can only hope that my parole board in two weeks time has rediscovered its purpose and makes a decision based upon me rather than the vagaries of Jack Straw's mood-swings.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/31/parole-chief-warns-overreaction
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Poor Communication
From the Ed:
Some of you may be interested to know that I wrote to Jack Straw back in November about Ben. One of his minions fobbed me off with a letter saying that as I am not a Blackburn constituent I should write to my own MP or to the House of Commons. I was a bit puzzled by this, having sent my letter to the London address in the first place, so I contacted Lord Ramsbotham, who made a comment on the Guardian article about Ben’s continued incarceration being “unnecessary and expensive”. On his instigation, I wrote again to our Jack. That was over a month ago. Still no response – not even an acknowledgement. I don’t think we can blame the postal strike, Xmas, or the snow for this lack of communication. I am now going to try e-mailing him, although the address I was given is not very encouraging: general.queries@justice.gsi.gov.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
