mcgillianaire: (Scale of Justice)

"In Furman v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court rules by a vote of 5-4 that capital punishment, as it is currently employed on the state and federal level, is unconstitutional. The majority held that, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, the death penalty qualified as “cruel and unusual punishment,” primarily because states employed execution in “arbitrary and capricious ways,” especially in regard to race. It was the first time that the nation’s highest court had ruled against capital punishment. However, because the Supreme Court suggested new legislation that could make death sentences constitutional again, such as the development of standardized guidelines for juries that decide sentences, it was not an outright victory for opponents of the death penalty.

In 1976, with 66 percent of Americans still supporting capital punishment, the Supreme Court acknowledged progress made in jury guidelines and reinstated the death penalty under a “model of guided discretion.” In 1977, Gary Gilmore, a career criminal who had murdered an elderly couple because they would not lend him their car, was the first person to be executed since the end of the ban. Defiantly facing a firing squad in Utah, Gilmore’s last words to his executioners before they shot him through the heart were, “Let’s do it.”"
mcgillianaire: (Scale of Justice)
This makes for morbid reading.

(HT @LondonHistorian)
mcgillianaire: (BBC Logo)

Paul Dacre, speaking passionately against press regulation in October 2011.

A fortnight ago, I couldn't even picture the man running Britain's second biggest-selling newspaper, The Daily Mail. I knew who Paul Dacre was, and I had (irrationally) grown to dislike him, but beyond that, I didn't know anything about him.

I had absolutely no idea about his life, what he sounded like, or whether his own views coincided with the controversial ones propagated by his middle-market tabloid. He was an enigma. A hidden sort of satanic figure, an imaginary Norman-Tebbit-Spitting Image-like-puppet machinating in the background. Now, a fortnight later, and the devil has been unmasked.

It began with BBC Radio 4 profiling him, as a response to the furore caused by a Daily Mail article written by Geoffrey Levy at the end of last month, provocatively headlined "The Man Who Hated Britain", referring to Ralph Miliband, the late father of Labour Party leader - and Daily Mail bete-noire - Ed. Then, yesterday, Dacre ventured into the dark side himself by writing in The Guardian, his rag's arch-nemesis in the eyes of his mob, sorry, readers. Sound a bit dramatic? It certainly felt surreal.

Throw into that mix a running feud between The Mail and Auntie, the post-Leveson repercussions, the Snowden revelations, and you have the perfect ingredients for a box office blockbuster. And best of all, we still don't know how it'll end yet.

For what it's worth, I'm with Paul Dacre on press regulation. I do believe that along with certain other things, such as: parliamentary privilege, free, fair and secret ballot elections, and an impartial judiciary wedded to the rule of law; a free press, warts and all, is essential to the healthy functioning of a democracy. Dacre is right to point out the disproportionate coverage by the BBC over the Ralph Miliband story, in comparison with the Guardian's revelations of the Edward Snowden documents.

As much as I am Auntie's cheerleader and part-time Guardianista, I would rather live in a country that allowed all views to be aired freely, even ones that disgust me. That does not mean the press can publish whatever they want. Nor should they be limited by a Royal Charter or even self-regulation. The solution lies in the application of existing laws on defamation, contempt and other relevant crimes as and when necessary. Some of the existing laws are already too stringent, particularly those relating to the freedoms of expression and privacy as embedded into English law by the Human Rights Act, via the European Convention. Even so, I would still prefer judges to recalibrate the imbalance on a case-by-case basis, rather than a regulator.

In any democracy worth its salt, there needs to be a clear separation of powers between the legislature, executive, judiciary AND (especially) the press. Many constitutional law textbooks do not include the press as an organ of government, and perhaps rightfully so, as it does not directly partake in the law-making process. However, it is precisely because of that unofficial status, it should be able to remain independent and hold the State to account. The last thing we need is for an official branch of government to interfere with a centuries-old institution, that has done more good than harm. Let those who break the law be held to account by the courts, and let the Great British public decide for themselves who deserves their readership or not.
mcgillianaire: (Scale of Justice)
"The campaign to set up the International Criminal Court to prosecute crimes against humanity involved NGOs’ organising international conferences and meetings, supporting Southern CSOs and State participation in the process through funding and information dissemination, and lobbying throughout many countries, including lobbying US Congress and the EU Parliament. The result was the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 17 July 1998, ratified by 120 states and finally coming into force on 1 July 2002. The international system would not have been sufficiently equipped to bring to justice those, such as Slobodan Milosevic, responsible for human atrocities, without this success on the part of NGOs." [LINK]
mcgillianaire: (Scale of Justice)
I thought the best way to commemorate this occasion would be to share an excerpt from my favourite speech by the Father of the Nation. It was delivered on 18 March 1922 at Ahmedabad Sessions Court where Gandhi pleaded guilty to the charge of “bringing or attempting to excite disaffection towards His Majesty’s Government", an offence punishable under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. The offence arose from three articles written by Gandhi in his weekly journal Young India. The speech formed part of Gandhi's oral and written statement to the court on the question of sentence. Gandhi represented himself but it mattered little as he did not seek to defend himself against the charges. For those of you who have seen Richard Attenborough's Oscar winning movie, Gandhi, starring Ben Kingsley as the Mahatma, you may recall a truncated though moving court scene in which the presiding judge (an Englishman) imposes the maximum penalty of six years for sedition, with the caveat that if at some future date His Majesty's Government saw fit to reduce the term, "no one would be better pleased than I". Gandhi's greatness lay in the fact that he submitted to the full force of English law while pursuing his fight for independence by preaching nothing but non-violence and non-cooperation. As Albert Einstein once said, "Generations to come, it may well be, will scarce believe that such a man as this one ever in flesh and blood walked upon this Earth."
    "Section 124 A, under which I am happily charged, is perhaps the prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen. Affection cannot be manufactured or regulated by law. If one has no affection for a person or system, one should be free to give the fullest expression to his disaffection, so long as he does not contemplate, promote, or incite to violence. But the section under which mere promotion of disaffection is a crime. I have studied some of the cases tried under it; I know that some of the most loved of India’s patriots have been convicted under it. I consider it a privilege, therefore, to be charged under that section. I have endeavored to give in their briefest outline the reasons for my disaffection. I have no personal ill-will against any single administrator, much less can I have any disaffection towards the King’s person. But I hold it to be a virtue to be disaffected towards a Government which in its totality has done more harm to India than any previous system. India is less manly under the British rule than she ever was before. Holding such a belief, I consider it to be a sin to have affection for the system. And it has been a precious privilege for me to be able to write what I have in the various articles tendered in evidence against me.

    In fact, I believe that I have rendered a service to India and England by showing in non-co-operation the way out of the unnatural state in which both are living. In my opinion, non-co-operation with evil is as much a duty as is co-operation with good. But in the past, non-co-operation has been deliberately expressed in violence to the evil-doer. I am endeavoring to show to my countrymen that violent non-co-operation only multiples evil, and that as evil can only be sustained by violence, withdrawal of support of evil requires complete abstention from violence. Non-violence implies voluntary submission to the penalty for non-co-operation with evil. I am here, therefore, to invite and submit cheerfully to the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me for what in law is deliberate crime, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen. The only course open to you, the Judge and the assessors, is either to resign your posts and thus dissociate yourselves from evil, if you feel that the law you are called upon to administer is an evil, and that in reality I am innocent, or to inflict on me the severest penalty, if you believe that the system and the law you are assisting to administer are good for the people of this country, and that my activity is, therefore, injurious to the common weal." (Source)
I think one can draw parallels between Gandhi and America's Founding Fathers, both of whom held a deep reverence for English common law, yet felt successive English governments had abused the principles upon which the English constitution was based, to a point beyond repair both in America and in India. Indeed until the Amritsar Massacre of 1919, Gandhi accepted British rule in India. But the sequence of events leading up to the massacre convinced him, like similar events in America in the 18th century, that India would be better-off without the British. Independence arrived nearly thirty years later. Less than six months later Bapu died. I leave you with the words of American journalist, Edward R Murrow, "Mahatma Gandhi was not a commander of great armies nor ruler of vast lands. He could boast no scientific achievements or artistic gift. [He] died as he had always lived - a private man without wealth, without property, without official title or office."
mcgillianaire: (Scale of Justice)
When copyrights were first created in 1709, it protected creative works for 14 years with the option to extend that by another 14 if the author was still alive. Over time the length of the copyright period was extended to: 42 years in 1842, or the life of the author plus seven years; to 50 years in 1911 and to life plus 70 years in 1996 for a "literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work", while sound recordings were protected for 50 years. That was until two days ago when the European Commission extended the copyright term on sound recordings from 50 to 70 years. Such extensions are bad for innovation. The legal safeguards were introduced to offer an incentive to create, but instead the current regime makes a mockery of that original purpose by working as an active disincentive. Indeed, a copyright period that extends beyond the life of the author is clearly not an incentive to create, it's a mechanism for publishers and record companies to boost revenues, often long after the author has died. In many cases, the publishers and record companies are merely the latest owners of the author's copyright, having invested nothing into the creative process that went into the work in the first place. Yet thanks to their deep pockets and our ridiculous copyright law regime, they're able to stifle creative innovation. For example, in America it's well known that copyright extensions have tended to happen whenever Disney is about to lose the exclusive rights to Mickey Mouse. And the way things are going it's not hard to imagine that eventually, the most powerful publishers and record companies will extend copyright periods to an indefinite limit until they last forever. It's not too late to join the fight against it!
mcgillianaire: (Scale of Justice)
A mobile phone advertisement featuring an illustration of Jesus winking and giving a thumbs-up has been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). This isn't the first time the ASA has adjudicated on religious matters and I think it's wrong that they do. Generally speaking, the ASA should only regulate ads that are misleading or deceptive to consumers, but thanks to powers bestowed upon them through the CAP Code (which they didn't write), they have assumed the roles of pope/imam in British society. To better understand what I'm on about, take a look at Clause 5.1 from the Code about Decency, which states that ads:
    "should contain nothing that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Particular care should be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or disability. Compliance with the Code will be judged on the context, medium, audience, product and prevailing standards of decency"
I think the ASA should not have the power to decide what is or isn't offensive to me on any of those grounds but even if you thought they did, alarm bells should start ringing when ads are banned on the basis of a dozen or a few dozen complaints, rather than the necessary threshold that the ad "is likely to cause serious or widespread offence" (emphasis mine). In the case of the mobile phone advertisement mentioned above, the ASA investigated the matter after receiving... wait for it, 98 complaints! But if you thought that was bad enough, consider the case of a magazine ad for Antonio Federici ice cream exactly a year ago that was banned after 10(!) complaints were received. Why? Let the ASA explain for themselves:
    "We considered the use of a nun pregnant through immaculate conception was likely to be seen as a distortion and mockery of the beliefs of Roman Catholics. We concluded that to use such an image in a light hearted way to advertise ice cream was likely to cause serious offence to readers, particularly those who practised the Roman Catholic faith. We noted that the number of complaints was relatively small but that the ad had been placed in a small number of publications only. The ad breached CAP Code clause 5.1 (Decency). The ad must not appear again in its current form."
Now I don't know about you but I think the ASA has no business banning ads just because it thinks, for whatever reason, the ad would cause serious offence to the entire Roman Catholic community. But it also seems obvious that even if you did think it was their business, the number of complaints makes little or no difference to the people deciding on such matters. They are both judge and jury on matters that hardly concern them.

Such moral policing is common in countries we deplore for a lack of free speech but it seems to me that even at home, there's one rule for advertising and one rule for the press. What's the press got to do with this? Well consider the cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed from 2005. It seems obvious to me that had the cartoons been printed as part of an advert, they would've been banned by the ASA. Similarly, had the mobile phone or ice-cream adverts mentioned above been depicted in the form of a newspaper cartoon, it seems highly unlikely that they would've been banned. Now I can understand there's a difference between newspapers and advertisements, as the former seeks to inform and the other seeks to sell (although with the popularity of tabloids there are shortcomings in that assumption). Therefore it could be argued that from a starting point of free speech, a higher degree of regulation is necessary for ads, and I'll agree with that. But the question is at what point should that regulation end? Should the ASA, which derives its powers through parliamentary legislation, be able to in the first place adjudicate on, for example, religious matters? If yes, to what extent should they be able to do so? If clause 5.1 clearly states the ad should contain nothing that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence, should the number of complaints play a bigger role in reaching a conclusion? Should the ASA have so much unfettered discretion in reaching its decisions on such matters? You know where I stand.
mcgillianaire: (Royal Coat of Arms)
Tuition fees are making law conversion courses less attractive by Alex Alridge | The Guardian [18 August 2011]
From a selfish perspective this is good news because I could do with less competition in the race to securing a training contract, but generally speaking it would be a sad state of affairs if it were at all true.

It is David Cameron who is 'twisting and misrepresenting' human rights by Benjamin Ward | The Guardian [17 August 2011]
The UK already has a British Bill of Rights. It's called the Human Rights Act. Like seriously, end of.

Who are the real looters – rioters or MPs? by John Harris | The Guardian [18 August 2011]
I made a similar argument a few days ago. The author provides better examples and finishes it off with a fantastic suggestion from a letter to the editor. Worth a read for that alone.

India's Selective Rage Over Corruption by Manu Joseph | The New York Times [18 August 2011]
The odd thing about corruption in India is that everybody takes part in it (not always by choice) yet there is no dearth of moral posturing from its worst offenders. For many, some forms of corruption are worse than others.

Kaushik Basu Says Make Bribe Giving Legal (in India) by Subhadip Sircar | The Wall Street Journal [30 March 2011]
A fascinating proposal from the government's chief economic advisor. At present the law punishes the bribe giver and bribe taker, but he argues that for "harassment bribes", only the bribe taker should be punished.
mcgillianaire: (Scale of Justice)

Steal a crate of water? Six months in prison. Incite violence which nobody acts upon using Facebook? Four years. What will they hand these bad boys if and when they're caught, charged and convicted for their crimes?
mcgillianaire: (Scale of Justice)
A few days ago I wrote about Nicholas Robinson, a twenty-three year-old electrical engineering student from south London who was sentenced to six months in prison because he stole a crate of water worth £3.50 from a Lidl store in Brixton. He had no previous convictions but the magistrate handed him the maximum penalty for his part in the "chaos". However it is worth noting that following the parliamentary expenses scandal in which hundreds of MPs were named and shamed by the Telegraph, none of the parliamentarians that have been convicted so far, received more than a sixteen month prison sentence. Indeed two of the criminals that were sentenced for twelve months made false accounting claims of £11200 and £6000 each. It seems patently unfair that an individual with no criminal record and whose only role in the riots was to pick up a crate of water, received half the sentence of a parliamentarian who had hoodwinked the British taxpayer for a much larger amount and over the course of several years. Perhaps you disagree with me. Either way, it's worth thinking about.
mcgillianaire: (Scale of Justice)

Unlike a criminal case, the American courts will only have to prove on a balance of probabilities that the former Secretary of Defense authorised the "enhanced interrogation techniques" against the two plaintiffs. As disappointing the facts of the case are in terms of the poor light it paints the United States, I hope the plaintiffs win their case against Mr Rumsfeld. I hated the bastard when he was in government and he deserves to pay in some way for the crimes he perpetrated while in office. A precedent needs to be set to encourage others to follow suit. You can read more about the case here.
mcgillianaire: (Scale of Justice)
From the Guardian live blog:
    A student has today been jailed for six months for looting a £3.50 case of water from Lidl in Brixton, which seems to support the analysis provided by the Guardian datablog that magistrates appear to be taking a hard line with those convicted of riot-related offences.

    Nicholas Robinson, 23, was walking back from his girlfriend's house in Brixton in the early hours of Monday morning when he saw the store on Acre Lane being looted.

    Camberwell magistrates court heard the electrical engineering student took the opportunity to go in and help himself to a case of water because he was "thirsty".

    But when the police came in, at around 2.40am, he discarded the bottles and attempted to flee the scene. He was caught and arrested by officers at the scene.

    PA reports that there were gasps from the public gallery as district judge Alan Baldwin handed down the maximum penalty he could to Robinson, who has no previous convictions, for his part in the "chaos".

    The judge said: "The burglary of commercial premises in circumstances such as this, where substantial and serious public disorder is or has taken place is commonly known as looting."

    Robinson, of Borough, south London, had pleaded guilty on Tuesday to a charge of burglary.

    He claimed it was an "opportunistic" crime, and he only went in when he saw the store unsecure and wanted a drink.

    Robinson will have to spend three months in prison before being released on licence.
On the other hand an eighteen year-old IT student reportedly walked free from Highbury Magistrates’ Court after admitting stealing Burberry T-shirts. David Attoh from Hackney in East London said outside court that the judge had handed him a £100 fine but supposedly waived it after hearing he had spent two days in custody. This lack of consistency in dispensing justice for similar crimes does not paint the rule of law in the best light.
mcgillianaire: (Portcullis Logo)
For those of you who don't follow British politics closely, a significant by-election was held in the northern English constituency of Oldham East and Saddleworth on Thursday. The election was triggered by the decision of a specially-convened Election Court in November to declare void the result in the constituency during last year's general election in May. The winner on that occasion had been Phil Woolas, the immigration minister in the outgoing Labour government, by a margin of just 103 votes over his Liberal Democrat rival, Elwyn Watkins.

Following two recounts, Mr Watkins challenged the result as an alleged Section 106 breach of the Representation of the People Act 1983, by claiming Mr Woolas had issued Labour campaign literature containing misleading claims about his reputation and campaign. The complaints centred on claims that Mr Watkins did not live in the constituency, stories about Mr Watkins "wooing" Muslim extremists and an article about his campaign financing. Two High Court judges found Mr Woolas guilty of deliberately making false statements about Mr Watkins because he knew all three statements were untrue. Mr Woolas was ordered to pay £5000 in damages plus costs to Mr Watkins, while barring him from holding public office for three years. The Labour Party wasted no time and suspended his membership with immediate effect.

Mr Woolas applied for a judicial review into the ruling but the High Court rejected his request. He then launched a second application for permission seeking a judicial review. The High Court decision took longer than expected due to "difficult questions to resolve" but on 16 November, the court granted Woolas permission to bring judicial review. The review on 3 Dec overturned one of the three breaches found by the Election Court. However, the other two breaches stood and upon leaving court, Mr Woolas said, "It is the end of the road - I am out."

This meant a by-election would have to be held to elect a new MP for his seat of Oldham East and Saddleworth. Interestingly, despite becoming embroiled in the court proceedings immediately after last May's general election, Ed Miliband, the newly-elected leader of the Labour Party reappointed Mr Woolas to the immigration brief on the shadow front bench team in September. Even the left-wing New Statesman described this as a "bizarre decision" as Mr Woolas had "run one of the most disgraceful election campaigns in recent history".

By parliamentary convention, the party who last held the seat (ie, Labour) normally moved the writ for the by-election, and apparently Labour planned to call the election for 3 February 2011. However the Lib Dems broke the convention and pre-empted Labour by moving the writ for an election on Thursday (13 January). Five weeks of frenetic electioneering ensued and although ten candidates contested the constituency election, it was largely a two-horse race between Labour and the Lib Dems. Even the Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party, appeared to offer his tacit support to the Lib Dems by toning down the Tory campaign led by their candidate, Kashif Ali.

More than eighty Labour Party members applied to be their candidate, but in the end the initial frontrunner, Afzal Khan was not even in the final shortlist of three from whom Debbie Abrahams was selected. It has been suggested that Ms Abrahams, who had unsuccessfully fought to retain the neighbouring Colne Valley seat at last May's election, had been hand picked by the party high command to contest the election. Indeed she had finished third (behind the Tories and Lib Dems) in a seat Labour had held since 1997. Ultimately it didn't matter as Ms Abrahams overcame her opponents comfortably, including Mr Watkins of the Lib Dems, by increasing Labour's overall majority to 3558.

mcgillianaire: (BBC Logo)
16 DEC - The rights and wrongs of hacktivism (Economist)
16 DEC - Art imitating life: Funky new ad puts a spin on personal hygiene and politics (The Express Tribune, Pakistan)
14 DEC - Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange: Michael Moore (Huffington Post)
10 DEC - Ron Paul’s Passionate Defense Of Julian Assange And WikiLeaks On House Floor (MEDIAite)
09 DEC - Pakistani media publish fake WikiLeaks cables attacking India (Guardian)

16 DEC - Top judge complains about 'sex with corpses' rules (Daily Telegraph)
16 DEC - Court backs tourist ban for Dutch cannabis coffee shops (BBC News)
15 DEC - Tweeting in court: why reporters must be given guidelines (Guardian)
14 DEC - Qatar: A centre for 'quality' international dispute resolution? (Guardian)

14 DEC - Let’s get London’s riots into the right perspective: Simon Jenkins (London Evening Standard)
14 DEC - An attack on the royal carriage by angry protesters. Sound familiar? (Guardian)

14 DEC - 'We the people' deserve something better than a high-class villain's charter (Guardian)
13 DEC - Toby Ord: Why I'm giving £1 million to charity (BBC News)
06 DEC - Medieval Britons were richer than modern poor people, study finds (Guardian)
03 DEC - Woman dials 999 to report snowman theft in Kent (BBC News)
03 DEC - Christmas with a German accent – the PR ploy taking Britain's towns by storm (Guardian)

03 DEC - India's third richest man gives £1.27bn to children's education charity (Guardian)
19 OCT - Indian man of 100 goes back to university for PhD (BBC News)

12 DEC - German man castrates teenage daughter's 57-year-old boyfriend (Daily Telegraph)

18 DEC - Liverpool fans outraged after Paul Konchesky's mum launches Facebook blast (Daily Mail)
16 DEC - India enter Formula One limelight (
09 DEC - The top 10 worst misses in football history: your votes are in (Guardian: Sports Blog)
17 SEP - Blackburn's Sam Allardyce 'more suited to Inter or Real Madrid' (Guardian)
mcgillianaire: (EU Flag)
The case comment reproduced below appeared in the Cambridge Law Journal earlier this year. It's written by J. R. Spencer, Professor of Law at Cambridge. Two judges heard the appeal including a certain Mr Justice Ouseley - the chap who let Assange out on conditional bail yesterday.

Abstract: Discusses the Divisional Court judgment in Symeou v Greece on whether the applicant could resist his extradition to Greece on the charge of manslaughter, which he claimed was based on tainted evidence, by relying on the abuse the process principle and the argument that it would breach his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.6 (right to a fair trial). Comments on the media reaction to the case, which has blamed the European arrest warrant system for the breach of a UK citizen's human rights.

Read more... )
mcgillianaire: (Scale of Justice)
The British government has (grudgingly) decided/been forced to end a 140 year-old ban on voting rights for prisoners, following a 2004 decision by the European Court of Human Rights which ruled that the blanket ban was discriminatory and breached the European Convention on Human Rights. Under the Forfeiture Act 1870, prisoners sentenced for felonies were denied the right to vote and this ban was retained in the Representation of the People Act 1983. Prisoners on remand, fine defaulters and those imprisoned for contempt of court can still vote. In addition, the Court allowed individual governments to decide which offences should carry restrictions on voting rights.

For several months, the government's lawyers tried to find a way to avoid enfranchising a potential 70,000 British inmates. But after exhausting every potential avenue the government realised lifting the ban was the only viable option, else taxpayers faced paying huge sums (upto £50 million possibly) in compensation from prisoner claims, and potential legal action from the EU. Most other European nations allow some prisoners voting rights. And despite two separate public consultations, the previous Labour government failed to implement any changes. The news has polarised the country with Tory and Labour supporters upset, though many acknowledge the government had no choice, while many Lib Dems are happy because they campaigned for the law to change. I too wanted the change. But what do you think?

[Poll #1639898]
mcgillianaire: (Scale of Justice)
Following on from yesterday's post, there were 2,649 British nationals detained around the world as of 31 March this year. But this figure only represents those nationals who were assisted by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and does not include political prisoners for whom separate figures do not exist. Only 256 were women. The figures are produced every six months. Here's how they breakdown by country:
01. USA         - 652
02. Spain       - 346
03. Australia   - 286
04. France      - 133
05. Germany     - 124
06. Ireland     - 101
07. Thailand    - 90
08. Jamaica     - 65
09. UAE         - 55
10. Brazil      - 37
11. Canada      - 34
12. Norway      - 34
13. Peru        - 34
14. Netherlands - 33
15. Pakistan    - 27
It's quite a different composition from yesterday's list, reflecting the most popular emigrant and tourist destinations of British citizens.

[Source: Hansard, 25 October 2010]
mcgillianaire: (Old Bailey)
As of 30 June this year, there were 11,135 foreign national prisoners in England and Wales out of a grand total of 85,002. 3,342 were EU nationals, 774 were women. 6,434 were serving sentences longer than six months. 581 were being held under immigration powers after completion of their sentences. Wandsworth Prison in south London had the most number of foreign national prisoners at 497. Those of you with a sharp memory will remember that I visited Wandsworth Prison nearly two years ago and I made a post about my experience.

The foreign national prisoners belonged to 165 countries and this is how they brokedown:
01. Jamaica    - 942 
02. Nigeria    - 727
03. Ireland    - 681
04. Poland     - 642
05. Vietnam    - 596
06. Pakistan   - 440
07. Somalia    - 433
08. Romania    - 380
09. China      - 364
10. Lithuania  - 361
11. India      - 329
12. Iraq       - 234
13. Bangladesh - 216
14. Portugal   - 209
15. Iran       - 197
16. Zimbabwe   - 189
17. Algeria    - 175
18. Turkey     - 167
19. Albania    - 154
20. Latvia     - 150
Most of the usual suspects, though I was surprised at how high Irish nationals were in the table. It would be interesting to compare the data with different time periods, against the percentage of foreign nationals resident in the UK and with similar data from other western countries.

[Source: Hansard, 26 October 2010]


mcgillianaire: (Default)

July 2017

91011 12131415


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 24th, 2017 04:03 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios