MASSIVE FAILURE OF BRITAIN'S POLITICALLY CORRECT JUSTICE SYSTEM

More criminals are returning to a life of crime within months of serving jail or community sentences than at any time since Labour came to power, figures released quietly yesterday show. More than 60 per cent of young male thugs and muggers are convicted of another offence within two years of ending their sentence. Three quarters of young male burglars and thieves also reoffend, according to the Home Office figures placed unannounced on its departmental website.

A massive 90 per cent of offenders on the drug treatment and testing order, designed to tackle the link between drug use and prolific offending, go on to commit more crimes. The programme costs the Government 53 million pounds annually. There is also a high dropout rate by offenders given the orders, which were introduced across England and Wales five years ago.

The figures are a severe blow to the Government, which is attempting to end the "revolving-door" syndrome, in which offenders are constantly in and out of jail. The data were released less than a week after Damien Hanson was convicted of the murder of the City financier John Monckton only three months after being released early from a twelve-year prison term. Elliot White, the second killer of Mr Monckton, was on a drug treatment and testing order at the time of the offence.

The figures show that 58.5 per cent of adult offenders released from jail in the first quarter of 2002 or starting a community sentence at the same time were convicted of a further crime within two years. When Labour came to power the figure was 53.1 per cent and in 2000 it was 57.6 per cent. The number of criminals who committed further offences within two years of leaving jail was even higher. It rose three percentage points to 67 per cent last year and reoffending by those on community sentences increased fractionally to 53 per cent.

When Labour came to power the reoffending rate for prisoners within two years of being released was 58 per cent. More than a third of criminals reoffended within six months of ending their sentence and almost 50 per cent within a year.

Statisticians in the Home Office insisted that the figures meant that there had been an improvement because the actual number of new crimes was 0.2 per cent below their predictions. The explanation is scant comfort for the Home Office, which is already facing a semi-independent inquiry into reoffending by the two men convicted of killing Mr Monckton.

A Home Office spokesman admitted last night that performance had slipped and that the figures were disappointing. Baroness Scotland of Asthal, QC, a Home Office minister of state, said: "We accept that these statistics are less positive than we had hoped. However, they still show that the reconviction rate for adults is less than had originally been predicted." She added: "Reducing reoffending is one of the core priorities of this Government and is at the heart of the reforms that led to the creation of the National Offender Management Service. Since 2001, we have made significant investments in the correctional servi-ces and have done more than ever before to address the underlying factors that lie at the root of reoffending....."

More here



Intolerant Britain again: Christians accused of homophobia

A retired couple were accused of being homophobic after they sent a letter to their local council objecting to what they saw as its pro-gay stance. Joe Roberts 73, and his wife Helen, 68, of Fleetwood, Lancashire, wrote to Wyre Borough Council complaining at their bid to promote awareness of gay issues. The devout Christians said the council was "pandering" to minority groups and said they felt discriminated against. Police questioned the couple but decided no crime had been committed.

The pair had questioned the council's bid to improve equality, part of which would see gay lifestyle magazines distributed around staff areas. Mr Roberts had asked if the council would display Christian leaflets, and was told all applications would be considered, but nothing that would offend minority groups would be approved.

He said in his letter: "If gay people made the decision not to think gay, they would not act gay. "Whatever they are giving their attention to will eventually mould them into its image."

A Lancashire Police spokesman said: "As a matter of routine, a police officer attended an address in Fleetwood to make further inquiries and to establish whether any crime had been or was likely to be committed. "As a result of those inquiries, words of suitable advice were given and we will not be taking any further action. "Hate crime is a very serious matter and all allegations must be investigated thoroughly."

A council spokeswoman added: "We received a telephone call and letter from Mr and Mrs Roberts. "Some of the wording in the letter was clearly inappropriate and so it was decided to consult the police on suitable action."

Source



A LESSON FROM GUYANA

A German prison chief has banned inmates from having Christmas trees this year. However, this is not because he is trying to be a modern day Scrooge, intent on preventing any sort of festive cheer, but rather on the grounds that the trees could be used to smuggle drugs into the prison. For Guyanese growing accustomed to stories of cocaine in lumber, it is not such a farfetched tale.

A county council in England recently banned the display of posters promoting Christmas services in a public library for fear of offending other religions. It however transpired that the same library had hosted a party to celebrate Eid just a few days earlier. The party had been organised by the grandly titled multicultural services librarian, a Muslim, but the council is predominantly Christian. Naturally, the double standard has elicited outrage, not so much at the attempt to be sensitive to the religious beliefs of others, but at the notion of bending over backwards to accommodate a non-protesting minority at the expense of the majority.

But the council was being consistent. Two years ago, it had ruled that a local church could not publicise its Christmas services on a community notice board for the very same reason. The Anglican religion may be the established faith of the United Kingdom, but for the council it is just another "religious preference group."

Another council has similarly announced that festive lighting does not "fit with the council's core values of equality and diversity" because Christmas focuses exclusively on the Christian faith. That would be a bit like telling our Hindu community that it can't light up for Diwali. But why should any council or other official body wish to embark on this slippery slope?

And surely it is taking political correctness too far when, according to surveys in the UK, as many as two-thirds of employers have put a stop to Christmas trees and other decorations in the office over fears that they will offend people from minority faiths.

In the current climate of Islamist fanaticism and the threat of home grown terrorist action by alienated British Muslims, UK officialdom is understandably very keen to avoid offending its Muslim citizens. Also, the UK increasingly sees itself as a genuinely multicultural and multi-faith nation. Some years ago, in recognition of the changing face of the country, Prince Charles famously said that on ascending to the throne and succeeding his mother as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, he would rather be "defender of faiths" than "defender of the faith."

So why can all faiths not co-exist happily in the UK with equal opportunities to celebrate openly? To most Guyanese accustomed to multiple religious public holidays and feast days, it would seem absurd to suppress visible displays of celebration. Indeed, we would probably agree that all citizens should have the right to observe their respective religious festivals in public, within reason, and not feel harried, hassled or persecuted in any way.

Without getting into the larger debate about the fact that Christianity lies at the heart of British culture, as has just been asserted by the Archbishop of Canterbury and his predecessor in what appears to be a co-ordinated defence of the place of Christianity in society and an attack on "silly bureaucrats", political correctness and profit-driven consumerism, suffice to say that common sense in the application of rules and laws and the observance of religious traditions should prevail.

Of course, it is another matter altogether in America, where some fear that the true spirit of Christmas is in danger of disappearing altogether with the banning of the use of the word "Christmas" in store promotions and retail advertising, following hard on the heels of the use of salutations such as "Happy Holidays" and "Season's Greetings", and the lighting of "holiday" trees in public sites, to be replaced by one long shopping season.

These more developed countries could perhaps learn something from countries like ours, where we treat our major religions equitably and accommodate minor ones too. Christmas, Diwali, Eid and so on are all worthy of equal respect and celebration and this adherence to a multi-faith society represents the best of our evolution as a nation.

Of course, many of us are only too happy to have a party even if its origins lie in another faith and this might arguably be more cause than effect when examining our record of religious tolerance. Nor must it be forgotten that Christmas in Guyana, as in the Western world, has become increasingly secular and commercialised, much to the chagrin of serious Christians.

But the Christmas season at least releases much of the tension built up over the year, and we can still catch glimpses of the true Guyanese spirit amidst the festive cheer of Christmas, whether we be Christian, Hindu, Muslim or whatever. It should be a season of peace, love and giving, though the unabated violence and murders do threaten to cast a pall over our festivities.

Source