Pussy Riot Hypocrisy

If a punk rock band performed a blasphemous song using crude and vile expletives criticising the Queen or the British Government in Westminster Abbey, the Daily Mail would be outraged and wold be calling for the stiffest prison sentences, if not the death penalty. The paper would have a front page outraged editorial in response to a lenient two year gaol term for such offenders.

Given the severity of custodial sentences meted out by the English Judiciary to people who stole a 30p bottle of water or made silly comments on Facebook and Twitter last August, could a punk rock band invading the sanctity of St Pauls Cathedral expect less than two years from an English court?

If Pussy Riot had performed illegally in York Minster would William Hague condemn the judge and the legal system that imprisoned them? Not bloody likely!

Of course the members of the group shouldn't have been imprisoned for making a valid political point, but there is something sickening in the British Establishment jumping on the bandwagon of Pussy Riot supporters when there is overwhelming evidence that Pussy Riot couldn't have expected better from a British court of law.

As the Bible says:
How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Sharing DNA with a Criminal Cousin

Former Policeman, Plaid Gwersyllt, on the Plaid Wrecsam blog  notes that North Wales Police is rather slow in implementing the European Court ruling that the DNA of innocents should be removed from the police databases.

The campaign to remove "innocent" DNA is one that confuses me.  My understanding, which is limited, is that my fingerprints are absolutely unique. You can't look at my fingerprints and say Ah! That proves that he is his father's son or his son's father! But that this isn't true of DNA.

Although my DNA is unique I share some of it with my family, and it is possible to do a paternity test to prove that my sprogs are mine and not the milkman's by using DNA.

As far as I know North Wales police don't have any of my DNA. A genealogical service does hold it; I paid them to take a sample so they could see how I am related to others who have paid them to compare samples. They regularly e-mail me to say that "Jo Blogs probably shares a paternal ancestor with you" etc.

Jeffrey Gafoor was convicted of the murder of Lynette White, because the police had the DNA of his cousin's convicted son, and that was sufficient to narrow the suspect range to members of the Gafoor family.

Even if all innocent people's absolute personal DNA is removed from the database, won't the DNA that the innocent share with the guilty still be on the database?

Even if I am as pure as the driven snow, but I have a criminal father, grandfather, uncle, son, grandson, nephew, second cousin twice removed etc, then won't my shared DNA still be on file, despite my personal innocence?

If this is the case isn't the argument about innocents' DNA a bit futile?

Is being a child a criminal offence?

A long, long time ago, before most of my readers were born, I use to play ball in the street with my mates. I couldn't understand adults who complained about our play. What harm were we doing? What was wrong with having a bit of fun? Those adults who, when asked can I have my ball back? said NO and ranted about the damage caused to their Prize Dahlias appeared to be unreasonable, miserable and sad.

Occasionally accidents happened, a broken window, an adult hurt by a wild ball, a newly cleaned car dirtied, and there might be consequences if dad was told. Sent to bed, pocket money stopped or, in the most extreme circumstances, a smacked bottom. All such sanctions appeared unjust because we were just having fun.

My father, my grandfather, my great grandfather and all my ancestors back to Adam's lads probably went through the same experience of not understanding why adults complained about boys having a bit of fun.

Now that I am a Miserable Old Fart, I understand and sympathise with those long dead miserable old farts who complained about my ball playing on the streets and I can emmpathise with the residents of Penmaenmawr who complain about kids playing football by the Spar shop in the village.

However, what I can't understand is the attitude of the Police towards the kids playing ball on the street in Penmaenmawr:

YOUNGSTERS caught playing football on the streets of Penmaenmawr risk being arrested and could face a criminal record. .... "There is a specific offence for playing games in the highway causing annoyance to road users." ..... "This is an arrestable offence and from this moment on, this is the approach we will be using. ..."This behaviour can land them with a criminal record. It’s only fair to give them all a warning first that they will face arrest if caught again".

So a child will face arrest, a criminal record and prohibition for life from any job that needs full disclosure for playing ball on the street twice? What is the world coming to?

Playing ball inappropriately is not criminal, it is naughty. Naughty children should be dealt with at home or in school, not by the police and the courts.

When naughty children are treated as criminals, childhood is made into a criminal offence. And if just being a child is seen to be a criminal offence then there is no hope for naughty boys to grow up to be law abiding adults.

Banned from driving in prison!?

My local freesheet, the North Wales Pioneer, has rather an odd criminal justice story in this week's edition. I can't find a link to the story in the paper's online edition at the moment, but this is the gist of the story:

A young man had rather a lot to drink and then assaulted his girlfriend. The police intervened, so the man stole the girlfriend's car in an attempt to make a get-away. He was cornered by the police and then used the stolen car as a weapon, driving into police cars and two police officers, before being apprehended.

In court he was sentenced to three years imprisonment for the assault on his girlfriend and the police officers and for stealing the car. He was also given a three year driving ban for the drunk and dangerous driving.

This is what I found odd about the story. My understanding is that prisoners in custody have no opportunity to drive. So if this man serves his full sentence he will not have had a driving ban in any practical sense. He will be allowed to drive himself home from prison on the day of his release! If he is given parole or remission on his sentence the practical time that he is banned from driving will have been shortened by the time that he will have spent in custody.

I can't see any logic in such a sentencing policy. Surely if a person is given both custody and a driving ban for a serious driving offence then the ban should always be consecutive not concurrent. It should start on the day the offender is released from gaol, otherwise the banning part of the sentence is just a nonsense that serves no purpose other than to make the law look like an ass.

YouGov: Law and Order etc

For some reason YouGov seems to be out of sync with their surveys. The results of the Wednesday survey on gay marriages hasn't been sent out yet. However further results from Tuesday's survey on the tanker driver's strike, boozing laws and law and order have been published.

Overall, 60% of panellist opposed the tanker drivers strike and 30% supported the strike.

In regards to drinking, 67% support increasing the age of purchasing alcohol from 18 to 21 and 29% would like the age limit to remain at 18.

There is a similar level of support for a higher age limit on buying alcoholic drinks in pubs and clubs (64%) and 36% oppose this.

A slight majority (52%) think that retailers should stop offering cheap alcoholic drink deals and 43% would like these bargains to continue.


The full set of results for the crime questions are below.

To what extent do you think the people listed below should be responsible for reducing crime in your local area?

Neighbourhood Watch
A very large extent 4.6%
A large extent 17.6%
A small extent 50.9%
A very small extent 21.9%
Not involved at all 3.6%

The Police
A very large extent 73.6%
A large extent 22.1%
A small extent 2.3%
A very small extent 0.7%
Not involved at all 0.5%

Local Councils
A very large extent 25.1%
A large extent 45.3%
A small extent 21.1%
A very small extent 5.1%
Not involved at all 2.3%

The parents
A very large extent 52.8%
A large extent 34.1%
A small extent 7.8%
A very small extent 3.5%
Not involved at all 0.8%

Local voluntary organizations
A very large extent 2.4%
A large extent 8.5%
A small extent 42.1%
A very small extent 30.8%
Not involved at all 13.9%

In order to restore trust in the criminal justice system, the government has proposed various measures aiming at reducing the crime rate. Which of the following do you approve of?
Police community support officers should be given more powers in issuing fines and detention 58.5%
People serving community sentences should be forced to wear visible jackets in order to show that they are being punished by law 58.4%
The administration of the criminal justice system should be removed from the probation service and contracted out to a new organisation.14.9%
Publishing "conviction posters", showing the public the profiles of the convicted criminals. 44.2%
A public commissioner should be appointed to represent victims of crime 48.5%

Clik Here is you would like to be part of the YouGov panels