Free speech?

There was me thinking that free speech was alive and well in the UK. That was until I decided to contribute to the BBC's Have your Say column, which had the title  "Should the public be told why Jon Venables has been recalled to prison?" I gave what I thought to be a balanced account on why I thought that the information about his recall should not be released into the public domain. Here is the exact copy of what I posted.

Venables has obviously done something serious enough for him to be recalled back to prison. If so, there is a very good chance he will have to face another trial. If the public are told the reasons for his recall any future trial would be compromised. I personally do not see why the exact details of his recall should be made available. If he was stupid enough to breach his bail conditions then he should be prepared to serve a longer sentence. What worries me is the frenzy the media can whip up with cases like this, which in turn brings out the very worst in human nature. You get the vigilanties, hell bent on reeking revenge on anyone they think is responsible, this could include family, partners or friends. Venables and Thompson served 8 years for their crime, which in Venables case was not enough. To any parent what they did was one of the worst types of crime imaginable, so releasing details of his recall would only make the matter worse.

I was warned that my comments could be classed as "Breach Contempt of Court laws" and because of this my comments were removed. What makes me laugh, is the fact that Jack Straw said when interviewed on television that Venables had done something serious for him to be recalled. So my faith in the BBC has been shaken by their over zealous reaction. Their reputation as being a soundboard for the ordinary man in the street has been damaged as far as I am concerned. I have therefore now removed my details from their records and in future will give their sites the widest of berths possible.

Sky TV.

Has the Sky organisation helped or ruined  sports coverage in the UK? Ok, they have pumped millions of pounds into the sports industry, none more so than the English Premier League. They introduced "pay per view" television, which meant you had to become a subscriber if you wanted to see  sport whereas years ago the general public could watch all the leading sporting activities free and unhindered. I do not deny they have revolutionised the way we can access sporting events, but there is a little of me that hankers for the old way of viewing. I was a Sky subscriber for a number of years, but no longer, because I felt I was being exploited by them. Despite paying over £70.00 per month for my Sky package, I was also being asked to pay "Box Office" fees when I wanted to watch live boxing. Add to this a call out fee of £68.00 should my system breakdown just added insult to injury. I also feel a bit miffed that I can no longer see domestic, Test Match and international cricket live without paying Sky. The once wonderful FA Cup Final has now lost the significance it once had, by I think, a purposeful strategy by Sky to promote other competitions in its place. Football clubs are being asked to change fixture dates to accommodate Sky's schedules, something that angers the fans who book tickets in advance of the games. Some fans also book hotel accommodation too, which in turn are disrupted by changes. I am not naive enough to believe we will ever go back to what we once had prior to Sky's dominance, but I hope the monopoly they currently enjoy is curbed sooner rather than later.

Are prisons working?

What do we want our prisons to do? Do we want them to be places of punishment or places of rehabilitation or a mixture of both? Having worked in prisons several years ago I know first hand the problems that exist there. The different regimes, the different type of prisoner, the lack of suitable facilities for training and the shortage of qualified trainers. There is also the question of overcrowding in prisons, which has always been a problem despite efforts to reduce the inmate population. I think the general public  have a growing concern about how much of a deterrent prison is these days. Everyday we hear stories from the media highlighting the luxuries inmates have and how they are living the life of Riley. Let me assure you, the reality of life in prison is far from that. Most prisoners I found, just wanted to keep their head down, do their bird and get out as quickly as possible. The recidivist criminals are a different problem. Prison is a way of life to them, something that gives them an identity that they otherwise would not have. Rehabilitation is looked upon by them as a distraction to their day to day activities. For any first time offender prison life is a traumatic experience and most never re-offend. This is where rehabilitation should be paramount, so that something useful can be achieved whilst they are doing their sentence. There is no simple solution to how we deal with crime and punishment, especially in light of the Jon Venables case, which has resurrected all the horrors of the Jamie Bulger murder. Should he have been released so soon? Obviously not, but his counterpart Thompson, appears to have learnt how to conform to society. There is a clamour now for details to be released of why he was recalled to prison. Personally I don't feel they should be. He has obviously commited a serious enough offence to trigger off a return to prison, so there is every likelihood he will have to face another trial. That's when the details should be released, so that any future trial is not compromised. So, the question is, do we have a return to a more  austere type of prison regime, so that it is seen as a true place of punishment or do we increase the prison budget and build more prisons that have facilities to rehabilitate rather than punish prisoners? Whichever course we take, it is going to be a long process that needs careful thought to go into it rather than any knee-jerk reaction from politicians who have one eye on a forthcoming election. 

Smoking.

One thing that irritates the hell out of me is listening to smokers whinging about the smoking ban. They blame this on the demise of pubs, saying that since the ban was introduced more pubs have closed down than ever before. Absolute tosh. Do these misguided, arrogant so and so's think that everyone who likes to drink in a pub, smokes? WRONG. In fact the majority of pub goers do not smoke. It is now a pleasure to go into a pub, restaurant, cafe, cinema, football match, theatre etc, etc, without being choked by some inconsiderate individual exhaling their poisonous fumes over everyone. What smokers fail to comprehend is how disgusting smoking is to non-smokers. Years ago I took on working behind the bar of a pub to supplement my income. I had split shifts especially at the weekend when I was expected to work 12noon to 2pm & 7pm to 10.30pm on Sunday. That meant once I finished the afternoon session I had to go home, shower and change my clothing ready for the evening shift. Not because I was dirty but because my clothes reeked of tobacco fumes. In fact I had to put the clothes straight into washing machine to stop the house smelling of stale fags. In addition to this I started with a very bad cough that I couldn't shake off. This was due to inhaling other people's smoke. Ugh. It was only after I left the job that the cough disappeared.Yet even now, we have idiots complaining that their rights are being contravened by the ban. What?? Our non-smoking rights have been contravened since time began. It only takes one selfish smoker to pollute a building, so imagine the effect when they congregate together and produce a large poisonous atmosphere. Another job I had was to help people with disabilities find employment. What annoyed me more than anything was when someone came in to see me complaining their disability was asthma and yet they would not give up smoking. They then went on to tell me what jobs they could not do because of their "disability". Suffice to say my efforts were channelled towards  the more genuine jobseekers and not the apologist smokers. What I find ridiculous is the extent some smokers go to have a quiet drag somewhere that they shouldn't. Yes I have smoked. I started from the age of 13 up until I was 24. It's not easy giving up, I tried several times before I finally succeeded, but it can be done if you are determined. What gave me the impetus to pack it in was because I was playing football and training regularly. I developed this persistent cough, which I couldn't get rid of. I thought to myself why am I trying to get fit and still smoking? The two just did not go together, so I packed it in and I have never smoked to this day. It is only when you stop smoking that you realise what effect it has on non-smokers and how uncomfortable it makes them feel. My father died from emphysema and my father-in-law died of lung cancer both as a direct result of smoking, so I know first hand what this horrible habit can do to people. So I applaud the decision to ban smoking from public places. The fact that pubs are shutting down at the rate they are is not down to the smoking ban, but more down to the fact that booze can be bought cheaper elsewhere and that our drinking habits have changed. Cafe-bars are the new meeting places. Too many pubs have failed to change and move forward. I have no sympathy whatsoever with smokers because like badly managed pubs they will die out sooner rather than later.

Kristian Digby.

I was saddened to hear of the untimely death of the television presenter Kristian Digby at the age of 32. What a waste of talent. He was a natural when it came to presenting property programmes on TV, including To Buy or Not to Buy. He even accomplished a long held wish of his to build his own house in East London last year, which was shown as a sequel to his other programme. He will be sadly missed by many, especially in our household.

RIP Kristian. 

House for Sale latest.

It is now 39 days since I put my mansion on the open market for sale and as yet I have not had a single person round to view it. I suppose when you use the internet to sell your house, you allow prospective buyers to view the property from a distance. Not only do you put all the details appertaining to the property but also add exterior and interior pictures too. Thus there is no need for them to visit your house personally. Like I have reported earlier this is the first time I have dispensed with the services of the traditional estate agent and gone for the cheaper, more cost effective, on-line estate agent. The only thing that the latter lacks is local knowledge and the ability to hold a list of prospective buyers in the area who they can canvas with your property details. But my main problem with high street estate agents is how do I know they actively promote my sale. I say this because I observe countless numbers of properties, which have been on the market for months and longer. Do they give up on these and hope the sellers try elsewhere? Who knows. I know it is still early days for me, but it is still a frustrating time waiting for someone to come along and buy. Even then the process could take weeks for the contracts to be exchanged. So I am going to have to dig deep into my reserves of patience and let things take their course, even though it is against my Aquarian nature to be patient. So come on you buyers, get yourself down here and make me an offer.

Bridge v Terry

Well the famous meeting of the two protagonists took place over the weekend when City played Chelsea at Stamford Bridge. As it turned out City came out it with all three points following their 4-1 win. Bridge made the decision earlier in the week of withdrawing from any participation in England's World Cup bid. This decision has split fans opinions on whether his decision was right or not. Personally, I think he has made the right choice, because it is not only the prospect of having play in the same side as Terry, but the fact he would have to spend time with him socially too, which could last a couple of months. For me, Terry represents a very poor role model for young fans, as does his other team mate Ashley Cole, the one player Bridge was asked to replace. Terry's arrogance in this sordid affair merits no praise at all and his reference to Bridge as being a "bottler" shows a complete lack of intelligence. This was the same Terry who a few years ago was involved in an unsavoury racist incident, which went to Crown Court. OK, the Chelsea fans who think he is God have their opinion, but for me taking aside his extra marital activities, I do not think he is that good a footballer, particularly at international level. In fact he looked very third rate against City, lacking any decent pace and being caught out time and time again. But that's enough about him and his Chelsea clique. Bridge on the other hand deserves a great deal of credit in the way he has gone about conducting himself. Not only has he had to endure his private life being emblazoned across the media, he has had to concentrate on his job too. OK, there are some TV pundits who think he could come to regret his decision not to play for England, especially as this looks like this is the best chance we have had since 1966 of going the whole way to the final. I still think he has done the right thing, because let's face it, if Cole recovers from his injury, which looks very likely, Bridge would only be as a back-up to him. Credit should also goes to him for making his decision in plenty of time for Capello to make alternative arrangements. Capello too should be given credit for the way he handled the captaincy situation, informing Terry that he thought he was unsuitable to lead the national team and going further by saying he would not regain the captaincy whilst he remained in charge. Hear, hear to that.