I would like, if I may, to offer a little more insight into a story that has been in the Manchester Evening News 3 times in the last week, as well as attracting compassionate and supportive commentary from the bigots who read the Daily Mail. The case involves a 20 year old student called Melissa Massey, who had assaulted a paramedic treating her after a pissed-up New Years Eve in Manchester.

When Massey went to Court, she pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and the Probation Service prepared a report to discuss sentencing options for the Court. A District Judge then reviewed this, before ignoring it and imposing an 8 week sentence. This caused outrage amongst tabloid readers who said it was too short, and mild disapproval with anyone who knows what they are talking about who felt that the sentence was a bit harsh.

It should be emphasised that unlike most people who commit offences like this, Massey had no previous convictions, is a final year university student, and appears to be little miss perfect.

Then, much to the absolute rage of Joe Public, the defendant had the gall to appeal against her sentence. She went to the Crown Court on Friday (4 days after being sent to HMP Styal), and was duly released having had her prison sentence suspended.

Inevitably, this has caused criticism of her, the Crown Court Judge, and the criminal justice system itself. Strangely, Massey’s solicitor hasn’t been singled out, which is a shame as there’s no such thing as bad publicity, and he’d probably enjoy telling people that he’s a legend.

The problem it seems is that no-one understands that a suspended sentence is more serious than a community penalty. The truth is that if, during the next 2 years, Massey commits any offence, or fails to do the unpaid work she has been ordered to complete by the Court, she will almost inevitably be sent to prison for 8 weeks.

I am not trying to excuse or justify anything that Massey did, and there are certain jobs that put people at risk of being the victim of violent crimes. People like paramedics, taxi drivers, firemen, or pub landlords do deserve greater protection and that can only be given by dealing with offences against them more severely. In fact, if Massey had randomly hit a complete stranger in the street, she would never have been charged in the first place. The police would have given her a caution, and she’d never have had to declare a conviction let alone a custodial sentence.

However, the purpose of the Court is not to simply punish for an offence. A bench, or a Judge should always punish the offender. An offence can justify a prison sentence, but it is crucial that the circumstances of an offender are considered to pass a just sentence. If for example you have a defendant with a chronic drug problem, or they need intervention to deal with alcoholism, the Courts should consider whether simply locking someone up will actually do anything to prevent further offences in the future. By taking a long-term view, and placing the criminal under the supervision of the Probation Service (with the threat of prison hanging over them if necessary), the Courts actually have the potential to protect the public from future offences, rather than to beat someone for past transgressions.

In Massey’s case, she had no underlying problems with drink, drugs, or her mental state. She was apparently a hard working student, on course for great things etc. The implications and long-term effects of her conviction are impossible to assess now, but you can bet your life this is not going to help her get a job, particularly given the fact she’s photogenic enough to have her face splashed all over the papers. When you consider the damage that a moment of pissed-up madness has done to her ambitions for the last 5+ years, perhaps you can see why she deserved some leniency and not have to face an immediate prison term.

This case also goes to show that if you have a choice, always get sentenced by a Crown Court Judge. They deal with far worse stuff than you’ve probably done, and will see your crime as comparitively minor, compared to the mini-tyrants that fill so many of the Magistrates Courts who seem to view the Mail as liberal media.

District Judge Berg has gone on to retire, and given a long diatribe to the Manchester Evening News about how people getting pissed and getting in fights is a plague on the streets of modern Britain. In many ways he’s right, and I’ve previously commented how alcohol is certainly no better than criminalised drugs. Unfortunately though, Judicial office isn’t the place to preach or comment on society, particularly when it shows you are too prejudiced about a certain class of offence at the expense of an individual’s just desserts.

For the record I am not endorsing, recommending, or condoning drug use at all. If you want to drink, smoke, snort, inject or otherwise ingest chemicals that alter your mood and physiological wellbeing, that’s your decision. All I ask is that you do it in an informed manner, and don’t come crying to me if you end up being used on the front page of the Daily Mail as a warning to others about the risks of your chosen poison.

Right, now that’s out of the way we can begin. Although if the Mail did stumble across this site it would be entertaining to be criticised and publicised on such a national scale. Maybe one day… it’s good to have an ambition!

I have a suggestion, and it’s slightly controversial. Let’s decriminalise heroin.

At the moment, the majority of the heroin that is coming into the UK comes from Turkey, Afghanistan, and other Baltic/central asian states. There is a lot of concern that now the US and UK armies have destabalised the Taliban in Afghanistan, the production of opium will escalate leading to a massive flood of cheap smack hitting the streets. At the same time, money is tight for Government, and they need a really good way of saving existing costs and ideally bringing in new revenues. My plan is flawless… kinda.

The current law on drugs is like alcohol prohibition in the US. People still want what they’re told they can’t have, and so turn to criminals to help with their curiosities. As a result, some very unpleasant people make a massive amount of money. Everyone involved breaks the law, and if they are ever caught the state stumps of for police time, solicitors (cheap at twice the price if you ask me), Court time, and potentially prison funding.

And does this “threat” of prison actually stop people who really want to take drugs? Of course not. It just puts them in danger of having tainted drugs, puts them in contact with some of the nastyest bastards on the planet, and takes money out of the pot that could be spent better elsewhere. Not only that, but heroin dependency leads so many people to repeated offending to fund their habit, which just adds more and more to the cost involved.

Now I’m not suggesting we quite go back to the Victorian days where, in the manner of Sherlock Holmes, you could more or less go to your local pharmacist and buy laudanum or opium. Boots the Chemist really doesn’t need the increase in profits, and why let private business take the money that could all go to HM Treasury?

Even the Royal College of Nursing thinks that a change is needed, and that it’s much better for addicts to be able to get their fix in a safe environment, with medical supervision. This takes the users off the streets more effectively than the police ever could, and who wouldn’t rather have streets, stairwells, or playgrounds free of dirty syringes?

Who would gain from this?

1- Well the users wouldn’t get more gear, but they wouldn’t have to pay dealers for the privaledge. They would be closely monitored and have better support with a system in place that can be designed to help rehabilitation through the NHS rather than inneffectively through the prisons.
2- There will be an immediate reduction in shoplifting, as smackheads don’t then have to go out grafting to scrimp enough cans of tuna or boxes of chewing gum together to pay for a £10 wrap.
3- The police can focus on other stuff, saving them time and money
4- The Government can slash the criminal legal aid budget (see, I’m not doing this out of self interest) and save money…
5- The Government can also generate money by buying up all the opium from Afghan tribesmen (thus making friends with them in the process), using that to create heroin as well as numerous other pharmacuticals, and selling it on at reasonable prices through the clinics.
6- Communities who no longer have to worry about street dealers and street users.

And who loses out?
1- The dealers, importers, trafficers, and anyone else who is currently making billions each year thanks to an inneffective prohibition that allows demand to flourish and supply to be resitricted by armed cartels. Why pay these scumbags for contaminated shite, when instead you can pay a fraction of the price for clean, medical grade diamorphine?
2- Defence lawyers like me, who will all know at least one client who’s a 1 man shoplifting industry because he’s a pathetic, sweating addict.

Seems like an obvious solution doesn’t it? I’m not saying it’s perfect, but it’s not as insane as it first sounds either.

I know this will still leave the drugs like cocaine, speed, ecstacy etc, which are seen as more recreational than the addiction of heroin. It’d take real guts for these to be legalised… but it would also generate real money if they were made available like other addictive and dangerous chemicals like alcohol and tobacco, and taxed in similar ways.

The argument for keeping these drugs illegal is always talking about the risk of harm. Well let me clarify one thing- alcohol makes people more aggressive and dangerous than any of the substances I’ve mentioned. Alcohol causes more breakdown of society, more domestic abuse, more fights on a saturday night than drugs ever will. Drug-related violence is down to rival gangs competing for market share, but I think I’ve already explained how that will be affected. In reality, if the Government was truly looking to protect the public from danger, fags and vodka would be treated like crack. I’m sure the tax revenues generated by British American Tobacco or Diagio has absolutely no baring on the argument of why these substances are both legitimate and sociable permissible.

If people are stupid enough to want to take these drugs, let them… but why should the country pay to pick up the pieces if we’ve not had our slice of the pie to begin with? Put the warnings on there like with booze and fags, and let people maked informed decisions. Treat them like grown ups, stop stygmatising and criminalising an industry that will never go away, and make a fortune in the process.

Simple

(I will settle for 1% of money raised as my fee for this idea)

Firstly, allow me to make yet another apology for the huge gap since my last post. Yes, I know I’ve actually missed an entire horoscope. I hope each of you did the only sensible thing possible in the circumstance and didn’t leave your house in case destiny was planning to violently offend you the second you stepped through your door.

It was the only option.

Anyway, I have been very busy, very stressed, and much as I enjoy writing for you dear people it would possibly have killed me.

So what is it that has stirred my mind and dragged me away from the unending tide of shite that fills my desk/bag/brain on a daily basis? Well it’s an old thing that I used to explain to people over and over on MSN messageboards when I could be bothered to irritate and undermine the other opinionated tosspots who bothered with those sites.

Last week, a businessman called Munir Hussain received a 30 month sentence for wounding with intent, after he assaulted a man who had burgled his home and tied him and his family up before threatening them with knives. This has caused absolute outrage in the tabloid media, and the Conservatives are now trying to make political capital out of it by saying they would allow homeowners to use anything but “grossly disproportionate” violence against anyone who breaks into someone’s house.

Now let me make one thing clear: I have sympathy with anyone who has their home broken into. Burglary is one of those crimes that always leaves an impression on the victim, as the sanctity of their home has been tainted by the incident. I have been victim to burglary, and know many others who have, so I mean it when I say I can understand the desire to get some form of revenge. But that doesn’t make it right, and it certainly doesn’t make it legal.

Contrary to what the Tory Smugs would have you believe, members of the public are already allowed to use reasonable force (i.e. force that isn’t grossly disproprtionate) to protect themselves and their property. It’s the principal of self defence, and it’s something I have probably explained to dozens of confused clients over the past few years.

The key issues or phrases though are self defence, and reasonable force.

Let me explain. You can use force if you have a genuine and reasonable belief that it is necessary to use force to protect yourself, someone else, or property. However, once you/they/it is no longer at risk, you are no longer defending it. You are retaliating. For example, someone comes at you with a wild look in their eye, and a fist raised. You use your years of ninja training, and deftly knock the assailant to the floor with the skill of a grand master. They are humiliated, and crawl away regretting ever breaking into the home of Chuck Norris’ harder brother. If you then run up behind this person and give them a few more kicks to teach them a lesson, you are not protecting yourself but assaulting them. This is illegal.

So, back to Munir Hussain. He and some of his family got free and chased the burglars off. As the assailants were running away, one got caught and overpowered and attacked. I’ll go into more details below, but I wanted to firstly clarify that Hussain was not defending his property.

Ok, so second point is that force used must be reasonable. Or, of you’re a Tory not “grossly disproportionate”. Actually, if you’re a Tory why are you reading this. You are officially banned. I’m not looking for political censorship, it’s just you seem to be favouring a party with very few actual policies other than those designed to support the massively wealthy, and other pathetic publicity seeking twoddle like the one we’re debating here. So you’re banned from reading this. Bastards.

Sorry, where was I? Ah yes, reasonable force. The best explanation of this I can give is that if we go back to our example before and someone runs towards you with a fist raised, it would be excessive to shoot him in the face with a Dirty Harry-style Magnum (the handgun, not the ice cream). The force you use to protect yourself must be proportionate to the perceived threat against you or your collection of Sylvanian Family beavers.

Now the Courts have made it very clear that if you think you are about to be attacked, you cannot weigh up the precise level of force needed to protect yourself and nothing more. Much of the case law on this point is making it very clear that what matters is what’s reasonable in the circumstances as they appear to the person claiming to defend themselves. That’s pretty accomodating really, and allows for the grey areas that exist in the real world.

What isn’t allowed under the principal of reasonable force is the following: the use of a pole, a hockey stick, and a cricket bat to beat someone so severely that you fracture their skull and cause permanent brain damage. Step forward Mr Hussain, and take a bow. Not only did you attack someone who no longer posed any threat to you, but you absolutely twatted him! (possibly not the terms used in the Judge’s summing up). Again, this is illegal.

I have seen a number of comments and articles referring to the level of provocation that Hussain had suffered as a result of this burglary. Well, yes he clearly was more than a little pissed off by what had happened, and I’m sure that that anger fuelled him as he took a few extra swings with his cricket bat. But provocation is not a defence to assault. I wish it was- my already impressive (hey it’s my site so I’m allowed to blow my own trumpet) record of trial wins would be even better if I could rely on the playground-level defence of “he was asking for it!” At best though, provocation is mitigation. It may put his actions in a proper light, but it doesn’t make them right or lawful.

What’s also significant is that by taking the law into his own hands, Hussain effectively prevented the legal process from dealing with the burglar in the proper way. Due to the level of injury caused in the incident, the burglar was not fit enough to enter a plea to the charge of unlawful imprisonment.

Perhaps I’m just defensive because I am part of the justice sytem and I like to try and justify my own existance. It confuses me though that the press are making such an issue of the fact these men were convicted, considering they  were found guilty after trial by a jury of ordinary citizens (not an “out-of-touch” judge).  Perhaps the sentence of 2 and a half years is a bit much, and I’m sure that the Court of Appeal will be asked to reduce this.

So hopefully I’ve put things across in a reasoned way that will help people to have a better understanding of the way the criminal justice system here in England views these cases. Whether it’s right or wrong is something each person has to consider for themselves. Let me pose a few rhetorical questions though to encourage a bit of reflection:

Do we really want a world where people are allowed (and therefore encouraged) to exact summary justice against an individual who has wronged us?

What if they had got the wrong man, or someone who had looked like the burglar?

What if they had killed him- would the press be sanctioning mob justice and a non-judicial death sentence?

Where do we draw the line if we go down that route? If someone takes a parking space or blocks you in, are you entitled to poke them in the eye or smash their headlights with a crowbar?

One other question though… if anyone can look at the details of Steven Gerard’s trial for affray earlier this year, when he managed to successfully run a self-defence argument, and explain how the whiny scouse gimp got away with it, please let me know. Obviously it’s not the case that a Liverpool Jury would be influenced by the prospect of sending their football club captain to prison, is it? And I’m not saying for a second that it’s remotely improper that the trial Judge and Prosecutor were both fans of Liverpool FC… am I?

Right. Sorry there weren’t many chuckles in this. Will try to rectify that soon, with tales of TechnoScouse or something similarly jovial.

For further reading, please feel free to laugh at the indignation of the Daily Mail readers at the bottom of this handy link. I hate Middle England, mainly becuase I grew up there!

You make it to the office and find that a bad day is getting worse- your meeting has been brought forward, and you go straight in to make a non-existant pitch. With the confident facade beginning to crack, you attempt to marshall your thoughts and hope for the best as you arrange your papers. You can detect at least 3 different bodily fluids on the page, but are more concerned by the fact you’ve either gone blind, or you’ve got a sheet of illegible scrawl. All you can make out are the lines:

“Most Haunted, but so men will watch too”
and
“Daphne, you little tease”

Hazy memories begin to seep into your mind- the taste of a worm at the bottom of a now-empty bottle of Mezcal, performing headstands while watching Cartoon Network… and it hits you like an electric shock. With new found confidence, shoulders back and chest out, you begin your pitch (secretly believing you’re invincible)

“Imagine an episode of Scooby Doo, but without the scruffy hippy, his dog, or that smug blonde prat. Combine it with Most Haunted, and we have greatness in the making!”

At least that’s the only way I can imagine someone coming up with the idea for “Hot Girls in Scary Places”. The title says it all really… or rather it outlines what the plan was. The reality is that the contestants may have the IQ of a squirrel, but that’s where the comparison with glamour models ends. As for the “Scary Places”, well they are just big buildings that are no longer in use so it’s like being the last one in work after your colleagues are in the pub.

So in this week’s thrilling and terrifying episode (thrilling as it gave me something to write about, terrifying because I’m one hour closer to death), 3 cheerleaders armed with torches, blankets, and teddy bears, are taken to an abandoned mental asylum. How do we know it’s a mental asylum? Well the big neon sign outside says so. Their mission: survive 3 deadly and terrifying encounters with the supernatural in order to receive 3 numbers, which form the combination for a safe that contains $10,000 cash.

These tasks by the way are given by some bloke on a TV monitor, who has a face like a melted pig. No make-up or anything, the guy just looks like crap. Anyway, he is the only genuinely creepy aspect of the show because he’s like a weird uncle who REALLY has been looking forward to spending time with kids. There’s something quite unsavoury about a television screen asking 3 college students to do a cheer for him… like Max Headroom at a lapdancing club.

Anyway, task one requires Wannabe Number 1 to go to “the examination room” (Cue Uncle Furtive to drool a little), while the second and third little pigs stay in their slumber-party mode and talk about how scary it all is. Apparently, 70 years ago cruel and unusual experiments were performed on the mentals in the asylum. Now the ghosts of these patients are able to communicate through a “Connector”. Now I’m not going to embarass you ignorant fools who don’t know what a “Connector” is. You know who you are, and frankly I expect some background reading from you so step it up Mr or you’ll be out of here faster than shit from a goose.

A “Connector” converts EVPs (Electronic Voice Phenomena), so we can hear the voices of the retarded-departed. Let’s ignore the fact that if this thing worked as it’s supposed to, we’d probably have heard about first it on the news, or any channel that isn’t E! The words of wisdom from this device (which definitely is communicating with the dead, and not just a walkie-talkie) are limited to “Danger”, before we cut to the other 2 discussing the colour of paint in the “safe room”. Unfortunately, the effect is as if the robot from Lost in Space has just seen a stray dog running down the street and wants everyone to be scared! In any event, the task actually turns out to have nothing to do with the robotic voice, but actually requires the bimbo to pull different levers until a scrap of paper drops out with the numbers on it. Spooky!

So back to sanctuary, for something to add credibility to this farce. That’s right, time for a medium to come in and explain what the spirits are revealing about the 3 muskahounds. I won’t bore you with the details, especially as I could predict them from seeing the short clips of them just chatting amongst themselves. Perhaps I’m psychic… perhaps the medium is talking toss. You decide.

The third task was to experience the presence of a spectral doctor (I swear I’m not making this up), by wearing some sort of helmet. One of the other bints was there taking notes to chronocle the experience. There was nothing at all more than general suggestions of feeling cold and scared, before Dr Evil appeared on a TV and gave them a task of finding a scrap of paper with another digit on it, that was hidden in some cold porridge.

It would be cruel of me to spoil the suspense of whether or not the trio did survive the night, and whether they got their money-shot. What I will say is that it was like watching an episode of Pat Sharpe’s Funhouse, with poorer production values, and Derek Acorah’s less convincing auntie. Whoever thought of it must have had a fetish for Daphne from Scooby Doo buried in their subconscious.

Could have been worse though. It could have been Velma.

This week, I am proud to be reviewing the Mail on Sunday. By way of introduction, its probably fair to say that the Mail tends to have a pro-Conservative/anti-Labour flavour… all with fervent support of what makes Britain Great (and loathing for anything that could in any way undermine it).

My favourite story of the day has to be: “The pups of war” What more could your average Mail reader want on a Sunday, but a detailed account of how good old British Tommys are taking time out from battling the terrors of the Taliban, to look after puppies? I am no animal hater, but it is a little frustrating that the British seem to give more of a toss about dogs than their fellow man. Perhaps that’s the reason why I have a pet snake… the very notion seems to repel some of the sort of people I have no wish to know!

Having just scrolled to the end of this lengthy piece to try and work out who the frigging author was, I was faced with this surreal preview to the next part in the piece: “NEXT WEEK: The Army engineer panicked and shot the gentle giant dead. Now I wanted to kill him.” I have to be honest… there’s a good chance I’ll look into this again to find out what the hell happened next!

If you do read this article though, please make sure you check out the comments at the end. I swear I didn’t post these!

- “You guys are what ‘we’ are all about. Thank you my friend! Bob Baillie, Southampton” [Just what's this "we" business... I can't help but feel that this is some veiled reference to the difference between jolly old Britannia, as opposed to those Taliban johnnies!]

- “What a wonderful but heartbreaking story. I do wish the media would report more on beautiful stories like this one! What an amazing man. Poppy, Lindon” [Anyone else agree with Poppy, that the media shouldn't focus on all those depressing Afghan civilian deaths and that whole dreary War on Terror, and instead focus on this Bravo Two Zero/Spot's First Christmas hybrid? Anyone?]

- “Best story in the paper today [no argument here!]…..Well done daily mail. better than reading about two and a 1/2 billion going to Russian crooks and Bottler giving another two billion to the banks. etc etc- Roge Wheeler, Mexico” [Now hold on a minute Roge, if that is your real name... why are you reading a newspaper if you aren't interested in current affairs, and just want to read saccharine bilge about fwuffy puppies?]

Right, I think it’s best to move onto another story before I feel the urge to go and punt a pooch simply to anger these numbskulls.

Moving on, let’s bask in the warming glow of anger directed at the BBC’s relocation package I find this just generally amusing, as it’s fairly standard for large companies to offer financial assistance when employees are relocating. The real beauty if the annoyance of “The TaxPayers’ Alliance (who) described the package as ‘a slap in the face to the ordinary taxpayer forced to subsidise such generosity when they are facing the consequences of hard economic times.’

Now hold on for just a second… firstly, who the chuff are the “Taxpayers’ Alliance?” As a taxpayer myself, when was this set up and where the hell was my invitation. Secondly, from a strictly grammatical perspective (foolish me for thinking a national newspaper would be correct on these points) is this really an alliance that belongs to taxpayers? Then finally, what does it have to do with them anyway? The license fee is not actually a tax, so you have about as much right to comment on this as you do about the presence of gherkins in a Big Mac!

Sadly there have been no comments on this story, as I was waiting for some herbert from Bedfordshire to make some snooty comment about the price of fabrics in the Northlands. Sadly I’m disappointed. Just shows though… if there’s no puppies, you just don’t care.

Speaking of puppies… if you fancy ogling surgically crafted sag-bags, have a look at the News of the Screws’ journalistic masterpiece on Kerry Katona. She now has tits like Evan Davies’ eyes.

So that’s about all the news that the Mail sees fit to print. It seems to have totally ignored anything outside the shores of dear old Blighty, and has made absolutely NO reference to the ceasefire between Hamas and those wacky fun-loving Israelis. Well let’s face it. The only way a paper can report that is to show compassion for innocent arabs who’ve been disproportionately twatted by the IDF… which flies in the face of all this paper holds dear!

All told… you’d get more hardhitting journalism in Bella!