大象传媒

Dear Newsnight

May I ask you if you could introduce a question about Trident tonight whether it has to be 'all or nothing'?
I am not a unilateralist and believe nuclear weapons did stop us being overrun by Russia a number of times since the last war.

But I do question whether we could actually scale down our deterrence so that it would do the same job but be far less costly. Money could be used instead to equip our army properly or go elsewhere ie into healthcare and foreign aid.

Do we really need submarines prowling the artic ice pack or sitting off the coasts of other countries particularly as we would never launch a first strike?

Indeed what is the wisdom of putting our deterrent at risk by allowing it to sail into open waters and thus become susceptible to potential attack.

I have sometimes wondered if our submarines are not actually sitting at the bottom of the Firth of Forth?!!

So what is the point of building costly launch vehicles like a new generation of submarines which seem to be over specified for the role they are to perform? And why the haste. My instinct is that Tony Blair will seek to make binding commitments to this before he leaves office. This will involve huge amounts of money going to US contractors, but why the haste?

I thought our submarines were ok until 2024 why make these type of decisions now? New technologies etc may come into effect which would make the deterrent obsolete, we could wait a bit and still have time to build the new deterrent.

And why build small nuclear weapons? It is very frightening to read reports that the US military would like some so they could use them in conventional conflicts. This would be a very dangerous and foolish thing to do.

Best wishes
Bob Goodall

GET REAL!!!!!!! if you can't do the time time don't do the crime SIMPLE....Parents get a grip of YOUR kids before they do the time!!!!

BRITAIN'S YOUNG PRISONERS AT RISK The youth justice system is in crisis, and the deaths of vulnerable young people entrusted to the care of the prison system are shameful. All prisoners are owed a legal duty of care, and Article 2 (right to life), Human Rights Act 1998, is of particular relevance.

There is no evidence of an increase in the proportion of crime committed by young offenders, yet twice as many children are locked up compared to a decade ago:

If a child (ie under age 18) commits such a serious and violent offence that public safety requires their detention, they should be held in local authority care. All other children who commit offences should be managed in the community using the wide variety of new schemes that are now proving successful at getting people to make amends for what they have done, and change their lives.

It is imperative that the Home Secretary sets a target to limit the size of the prison population. John Reid must adopt a sustained high profile strategy to talk down the jail population. Meanwhile, England and Wales retain the ignominious title of being the leading incarcerator in western Europe, despite overall crime having fallen 44% in the last decade.

I write as the bereaved mother of my only child, aged 18, who died (while on 'suicide watch') in the 'care' of Styal Young Offender Institution:

An excellent presentation by Newsnight.

I'm sorry those young men died in the circumstances they did however... actions have consequences. Of course these kids feel intimidated, unhappy, depressed and pushed into a lonely corner when they're locked up, but I'm pretty sure they don't consider those very same feelings in the people they commit crimes against in the street.

We're always hearing about people's rights these days but we don't hear so much about responibility. You are responsible for your own actions and when you DECIDE to commit a crime you DECIDE to take the consequences.

In reply to Steve what about the kids in care? Have you studied the stats? A large percentage end up in trouble with the law.Have you got teenagers? Do you REALLY know where they are? Did your parents know ALL the stuff you got up to?
I work with Young People in custody and if you had read their files you would not blame the children for their parents. Both those mum's in the programme looked like they cared they thought their boys were safe.
Go and do some proper research!!

Actually, all children should be sent to camps in the country to be schooled and trained and not allowed back in to polite society until post 16 AND proven to be responsible adults. This also has the advantage of keeping teachers in the camps.

I have been involved in the implementation of an Intensive Fostering Service as an alternative sentencing option to custody for serious and persistent young offenders. My interest in the initiative was borne out of an abhorrence of the locking up of children partly for the reasons featured in your presentation this evening but mostly because of my firm belief and conviciton that if to lock children up is the only option adults can justify then it is the adults who have failed. Intensive fostering recognisesd that serious and persistent young offenders were more likely to re-offend if sentenced to custody. Here they would be further influenced by other serious and persistent young offenders whereas there is evidence that removed from the environment where they offended and from the pressure of offending peers they were less likely to re-offend. Anti-social bbehaviour is re-modelled into pro social behaviour. The Youth Justice Board committed three years funding to three pilot intensive fostering projects across the U.K. In 2008 this funding will cease. Alternative funding will be needed if this proven successful intiative is to continue. It appears at the moment that it is unlikely that Local Authorities will take over the funding and so an imaginative alternative and most importantly successful approach to the prevention of serious and persistent offending amongst the young will be abandoned.

Society was about showing off ability ...Blairism is about the misery of preventing it...!

Some people are saying the lad who hung himself didn't care about himself so why should we...and why is that mother so happy she lost her kid!

Most think the mother's goodness is suspicious ...and deep inside she wanted him dead for daring to challenge her authority and choice of man... most think her man f#ked him up on purpose for interfering in their life ...and they didn't care about him... but are exonerating themselves... as therapists direct... so that he deserved it.. she did her best.. she gave him a good life... and he had mental problems.. that were not her fault.

The lad did not have the experience to deal with the situation...

There may be bands who sing about that sort of thing... that could raise morale and emotionally train people with the right gobsh!t to lead themselves...is a popular thought...

The deservence services take away control because they see that as a class above... and without control young people can only suffer as they have...

Society was about showing off ability ...Blairism is about the misery of preventing it...!

BCD

Lads in prision should be given spare english hymnals ...they are only a few quid and they give morale raising lessons in life! and the enjoyment and proudness and defiance of a good song and a sense of belonging

In a prision situation suffering is not the only option but that is what blairites want to make it...

Dear Newsnight

Glad your show led with the death of childen in prison, very vulnerable as are many adults there. I believe the priorities are right here. The most important issue for our society is about the wellbeing of the individuals in it, and in particular the care we show to those most of need of help, here and abroad. A big issue for Government -if it is indeed caring- is why does a show like yours have to highlight issues like the death of children in custody. I felt particularly sad for one of the Mums you interviewed.

Surely it is the job of Government to be aware of these sorts of issues and many more, and change the way things are done? To be proactive and not reactive?

That said are they aware of say in this case the death of children in Prison? If not, why not?
and if they are aware of it why havent they done anything about it?

or are the comments from the former Foreign Office official about MPs, on your show tonight, relevant this this, ie though he didnt say this exactly, that many MPs are not competent or prepared to ask the right questions?

re the second subject, the nuclear deterrent, again it seems strange that we concentrate our deterrent in 4 maybe 3 submarines. Maybe they would survive detection, maybe not but it seems a huge risk. Surely dispersing them would be better, and re the point in the first blog, how many do we actually need, 160 or far less, and surely there is no case for putting them in submarines

Best wishes
Bob Goodall

An excellent programme tonight - 8/10

Q. can NN provide list of people interviewed & in what stories?

YOUNG OFFENDERS:

Very interesting piece.

Some official stats: [1a] [1b]

If necessary custodial sentencing needs play a part of the options available.

Am of the opinion, that numbers game (sentencing, length, frequency) is not the whole answer, rather than what happens to them to help them stop re-offending or failing that, deny them the opportunity & protect society.

But the young man who spent 3 months in an institution, seemed somewhat bemused at the notion that punishment means that he might feel out of sorts & feel some discomfort - why was that? Has he at home, school or in community never be held accountable (knowing what a right & a wrong is).

If he has repented & is unlikely to reoffend - well done.

If not, he got off light, rather than the victim of his street assault & robbery which he was convicted for

Doubtless some bleeding hearts are aghast at the notion that those imprisoned as young offenders are in any way 'disadvantaged' by the experience - but its Crime & Punishment after all :)

The reality of limited resources is that if the state is faced with spending such on society or a disprotional amount ensuring the full 'Human Rights' of criminals (no matter how young) the public will not care to authorise the latter.

If society has to spend money it should be too turn young offenders around or at the very least deny them the opportunity to committ further crime against society.

Resources should not be mispent 'protecting' criminals', not challenging their poor traits & enshrining every aspect of their Human Rights legislation at the cost of & too Society.

Tragic that some guilty young men kill themselves. But if it鈥檚 a choice of allowing successive generations to inflict numerous crimes against society or have them face the risk of imprisonment (in all its forms) for their crimes - than those who committ the crime, will not only have to do the time, but face the inherent risks.

In any institution, criminals have more choices & rights than any of their victims, during the crimes they choose to carry out.

Still argue that anti-social behaviour is linked to unravelling of social norms Post WWII by the liberal left & left, in pursuit of their never unending pursuance of their version of rights & liberty for all (but determined by a illiberal few).

NUKES:

Only the Usual Suspects in an uncertain & dangerous world can recommend disarming.

It was not the right tactic in the Cold War & its most certainly not right now.

Their right to protest is maintained by the states capacity to defend & societies willingness to be defended.

Theirs is a type of logic that persuades a Gun Fighter to become an ex Gun Fighter & go to the Gun Fight without his guns, armed only with good intentions.

Respect some of the other voices in this debate (esp ex military) but believe they are very wrong.

The non nuke / unilateral disarmament / anti war brigades (who right to protest is enabled by an armed state) both forget/misinterpret the lessons of history, misinterprets where the world is today & they do not possess a Crystal Ball to define the nature of threats in the future.

When looking to define British security policy, theoretical ideals (pursued & touted by minority pressure groups) about how they wish the world & people too behave - bears no relation to human history.

Deal - we'll Guard the Gates against the Barbicans (on both sides now) - they hug each other, look very earnest, wish for the best & whilst they forget the cyclic nature of history.

ARMY:

Having served myself, nothing wrong whatsoever in recruiting from all levels of society.

The same society the Armed Forces are tasked with defending & serving.

Reality Check, the armed forces is full of & relies on people who have been influenced by plethora of WWII movies, electronic war game play, comics etc & above all humans basic aggression in the young (any playground demonstrates that).

My experience was they were often broken/dysfunctional homes, & the Army offered them the nearest thing to stability & siblings.

It's nothing more than a trade off.

The military needs able minds & fit bodies & above all seeks to recruit people who are willing to be shaped & influenced i.e. the young.

Yes its ultimately not for something not particularly nice - to kill other people - but that鈥檚 the nature of the job & the nature of human beings.

btw - a pair of Army boots are designed to last as long as an average career - 3 years (wear & tear).

Welsh Nationalists need to re-examin Welsh & British history.

Given the increasing levels of antisocial behaviour in many communities, the opportunities afforded by national service (esp education & housing for families) is more than a fair trade off.

Well done JP ref the attempt at misdirection by Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru MP for Meirionnydd Nant Conwyw & the parties leader at Westminster.

Elfyn Llwyd intentionally tried to confuse the accurate statement of the military being 'Invited In' by School Heads with the military 'inviting themselves' & then had to back track & tried to adopt the position that the military had only being 'Authorised' to be in schools.

Elfyn Llwyd looked out of his depth & ultimately foolish - doing him & Plaid Cymru no favours - given his expose to politics - Llwyd should have known better.

Good point raised by Tim Colins (ex Royal Irish CO) ref Army's relationship with society in NI & the anti-British parties attempts to undermine such.

Just as its seems Plaid Cymru are now looking to do, an increasingly anti British party.

ANTI BRITISH - SEPARATIST PARTIES:

- Sinn Feing [2a]
- Plaid Cymru [2b]
- SNP [2c[

All left leaning parties, with interesting backgrounds & track records.

- Sinn Feing:

Unfortunately the blog cannot contain their numerous policy & statement fopa's

- Plaid Cymru - interesting company they keep:

"Sinn Fe虂in has yet to announce which grouping they will join but it is expected the party will align itself to the EUL/GNL grouping or the Green/European Free Alliance which counts the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru and Basque parties among its members" [3]

- Plaid Cymru on World Politics:

"Rev Gillham, who was the Plaid Cymru candidate's agent in Preseli Pembrokeshire at the 2005 General Election 鈥�..the mayor-elect of Haverfordwest described the Hezbollah organisation as 'freedom fighters' on a recent trip to the Middle East where he met the terrorists leader, Sheik Nabil Kaouk. [4a] [4b]

- Scottich National Party (SNP) - Alex Salmon on World Politics:

"NATO's action against President Milosevic as "unpardonable folly" in pursuit of "misguided policy" and described NATO's attacks as comparable with the raids by Germany's Luftwaffe on Clydeside" [5a] [5b]

SUMMARY:

As ever, the best justification for a United Kingdom is the amateur performance & single issue myopia of such separatist parties.

A NCA program is somewhat hostage to what's going on in the news, but the selection of stories & how they are handled & followed & what materials are used is down to professionalism - well done NN

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1a]
[1b]
[2a]
[2b]
[2c[
[3]
[4a]
[4b]
[5a]
[5b]

I might suggest you research the role of a SENCO in the school education system and then look at what the government is doing on this front.

With regards the army its about the ruling class seeing the working class as canon fodder, whats new?

The Turner Prize hits an all time low with the kind of stuff you see in habitat and exploited reality show
people being, well exploited.

The problem lies with the fact that we have a system that has more in common with feudalist hierarchy - the "important" curators of "important" art institutions along with the muli-millionaire collectors being able to bestow "name" status on artists. We need an alternative !

My son was involved in a domestic incident with his stepfather earlier this year. The CPS are prosecuting against our wishes as they deem that it is in the public interest. Having never been in any trouble before he is looking at a custodial sentence and we believe that he will be made an example of. As the victim and witness we have no rights and putting my son in such a place, I firmly believe will turn him into someone who will re-offend as these places seem to school criminals and they learn far more about how to commit crimes whilst in these centres. The CPS have no regard for the welfare of children it seems their only concern is to meet targets irrespective of the harm it causes to families. Prison is not a detterent, it does not work.

I thought it was disappointing that the YJB were unable to put someone forward to promote the good work being done with young people in cusotdy but I understand that the pending inquest puts them in a difficult legal position.

The issue about the safety of children in custody is clearly important, no child should die when in the care of the state. As mentioned in the programme significant steps have been taken to make cusotdy safer for children in recent years but clearly more needs to be done.

The other issue, which was mixed into the programme in a somewhat muddled way was whether these children should be in custody at all. There is a debate that needs to be had about how we as a society deal with teenagers committing criminal acts.

The vast majority of children in custody are 16 and 17 year old boys and I fear the public have little sympathy for those who say these young men should be given community sentences or put into children's homes. Worryingly I can only see the use of cuisotdy increasing for this group as people become more fearful of them and turn to the state for answers.

Thats a very moving and important story Pauline. More on this front please Newsnight, put a spot-light on it and apply pressure.

If prison is viewed not to work, why?

1. fails to prevent reoffending (not offering adequate support during/after release to provide alternatives to crime)

2. fails as a form of deterrent (people deem the risk of being convicted, sentenced & the regime of prison 'worth the risk')

Just like Welfare Benefits, if Prison Life is not a somewhat intentionally 'tough love' experience, surely the temptation to work the system (in its entirety) & stay in the system, rather than work an honest living & lifestyle (with all its challenges) proves more attractive & doable.

In looking to be fair to all (esp via encroaching notions of 'Human Rights') are we in reality reinforcing peoples own failings & the state is acting as an 'enabler'.

'Tough Love' has always had a legitimate place in British society (if not human nature) though liberal left & left have sought to forget its key role given their wishful societal engineering plans & experiments [5]

- HM Prison Service [1]
- Diet and Exercise [2]
- Education & Trg [3]
- Reoffending [4a] [4b]

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4a]
[4b]
[5]

vikingar you need to experience the complexity of the problem and not just make assumptions based on your word research, notable and informative though it maybe. Mental illness and the knife edge social balance in young people requires very carful and expert help, this government will not spend the money on it - its intend on getting rid of what it see's as the dysfunctional under class. If they choose to kill themselves then so be it. In the 19c they sent them to Australia and look how that country turned out.

Carne Ross is clearly a man with a strong moral and ethical agenda. As former First Secretary to the UK's UN Mission, and the Mission's Iraq expert, he is presumably in possession of more specific knowledge in relation to the Government's use of intelligence and their interpretations of evidence of, for example, WMD than almost anybody else.

If the Foreign Affairs Select Committee's remit is to investigate and discuss the circumstances which led to the PM's decision to go to war in Iraq, and if Carne Ross has information not in the public domain which has a bearing upon the legality and legitimacy of the war, then it is surely the Committee's duty to request that information, and the public's right to share it.

It is inevitable that the Committee's extraordinary reticence in requesting this information will raise doubts as to its agenda.

i am 14 and i think that children should have a better time in prison! ok the kid might have done a lot of wrong in their life but HELP them get them through prison life teach them how they should behave! dont just lock them up in room and forget about them i know in prison they get school lessons but just do more than that make the lessons a bit more fun and happy get them out of that miserable world their living! kids needs help i am one! you cant just stick a child in a room and give them a book to copy from, yh they have done wrong but we all need a few chances from life thats what its all about!!
please just help the children get through prsion life!
thank you

Ref Chris #21

fyi - personally have sufficient experience & first hand opinions of people I rate (on both sides of the problem) to hold a view on this, thank you :)

Whilst attributed to new/additional causes, the problems we face are inherent human social disorders, reflective of human nature, attitude & behaviour.

The whole of society cannot be put into 'care'.

Otherwise as a race, humans would have not developed thus far.

You cannot legislative against key aspects of human nature & seek too 'condition' successive generations with 'right on' views.

I just don't view every person as requiring default state intervention & assistance & permission to exist & interact with others.

Alongside enlightened advances in personal, community & societal assistances, what should never be forgotten is that 'tough love' is an integral part of what people are, on both sides, who gives & who receives such.

"Spare the rod & spoil the child" is as true then as today, whatever the actual manifestation of 'rod' is nowadays.

'Spoil' has become a byword for default state sponsored intervention, non blame, non accountability culture towards our youth.

Too many state agencies & departments, are staffed by often well meaning types, those whose political views seek to foster a non challenging laissez-faire approach to individual failings & responsibility, undermining the state/society right to answer CRIME with PUNISHMENT.

The reality is with limited resources & conflicting demands on such in society, only every so much can be directed towards those causing harm to themselves & society. How we spend it to ensure desirable results, not how much we spend, should be key.

vikingar