BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Charles Clarke

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Tryphena Absent
19:47 / 25.04.06
The British Home Secretary is apparently not going to resign. The summary is a quote from the Guardian article linked above.

In the middle of a local council election campaign, with his name on hundreds of Labour party leaflets littered across the country, the press is already jumping on this. The BBC only put the story on their website after lunch today but Clarke has been all over the place giving interviews today. This decision only raises his profile and the significance of the story.

Basically if Tony Blair issues a message of support his job is bound to be in the dustbin.

What do you think- will he stay or will he go? The history of "I will not resign" statements is a checkered one, why did he say it?
 
 
sleazenation
20:10 / 25.04.06
I'm not sure this can be pinned on Clarke personally though, nor on his immediate predecessors - the best I can see this is a series of sytematic fuck-ups and obfuscasion on the part of the civil service...
 
 
Tryphena Absent
20:22 / 25.04.06
I think this is probably one person in an administrative post who didn't put the files in the right pile or failed to tick a box. It meant another person didn't put the names on a spreadsheet... one of those people probably left, someone new came in who understood the job better and pointed out the error. It could happen in any institution and it's an easy mistake with big implications. It looks like a paperwork problem to me.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
20:24 / 25.04.06
The real story is that this came out on a bad day for Clarke, at a bad moment for New Labour.
 
 
Ganesh
21:04 / 25.04.06
On a personal level, I feel rather angry about it: as an NHS psychiatrist, if a patient of mine kills himself on my 'watch' I have to undergo a fairly extensive (and often gruelling) internal inquiry; if he kills someone else, I'm majorly hauled over the coals, and it's not unlikely my job (if not my entire career) is over. By my reckoning, Charles Clarke, in allowing over 1000 criminals to go free in this country, must have enormously upped the statistical likelihood of some sort of violent somethingorother happening on his 'watch'. If it does happen, resignation be damned; I trust he'll be fired.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
21:22 / 25.04.06
If it happens losing his job will be unavoidable but I doubt that the blame lies specifically at his door. The problems lie in the institution underneath, the biggest problem is that this goes back to 1999 and it's difficult to find people who were released 7 years ago.

Don't get me wrong, I dislike Charles Clarke, I don't particularly want him to be Home Secretary but there's a suggestion of responsibility to your specific job in what you're saying and surely the person directly responsible for this- the civil servants who actually perform the actions linked to the system- should be held as very responsible for this incident. Clarke's job is broader than this one thing, he has a lot to oversee, he doesn't actually highlight which people should be deported and I doubt he's the manager of the person who does or even the manager of that person. There's a job chain here that wasn't working for a long time and I'm not sure how the Home Secretary is meant to know that something's going wrong if he's not told about it. Sacking comes into it at the point where you realise they've known about this since September or October and people were released without the potential deportation tag in March, which suggests that those who should have been fired weren't. If Clarke's going to go then that should be the reason why.
 
 
Ganesh
21:35 / 25.04.06
If it happens losing his job will be unavoidable but I doubt that the blame lies specifically at his door. The problems lie in the institution underneath

If I found myself in (one thousandth of) Clarke's situation - something serious happening as a result of me, however notionally, taking my eye off the ball - I could make the same argument about the state of the NHS and the problematic nature of the Mental Health Act. I'd still be considered responsible enough to possibly/probably lose my job over it. One death.
 
 
sleazenation
05:47 / 26.04.06
A good day to bury bad news it seems - such as John Prescot's affair with his secretary...
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
06:54 / 26.04.06
Clarke offered the PM his resignation.

On this I tend towards thinking Clarke shouldn't resign (well, he and the rest of the Government should, but that's seperate), but if one of those murderers kills someone, or the paedophile attacks a child then he should resign immediately and not 'allow' Tony to talk him down.

Prescott's affair.
 
 
nameinuse
10:34 / 26.04.06
I always get uncomfortable when these stories come out, and straight away there are calls to resign. I head Michael Howard on the radio this morning calling for his resignation too. He's probably the last home secretary that isn't in some way responsible for this happening.

I'd much rather the Home Office figured out exactly how this happened, and prevented similar from happening again. If that necesitates the removal of Charles Clarke or others, then so be it. If not, it's just asking for a less experienced person to make more mistakes. Part of me thinks that the two previous home secretaries should resign from whatever they're doing, and Clarke should be commended; it's on his watch that this was discovered.

Ganesh - The level of the blame culture in the health service is truely terrifying. Having known a few people who've worked on the administrative side, the first thing anyone says when something goes wrong is "wasn't my fault", because somewhere, someone involved in the process will get it in the neck. So few of the failures I've seen are appropriate to personal censure and are more indicative of a failing organisation. In fact, many of the people who've worked there have said that it's a barrier to getting things done, it's far easier just to get by, keep your head down, and not risk getting blamed for actually changing something.

So, yes, excuse the threadrot. I doubt any one person knows enough to make a sensible judgement on this case at the moment, and it'd be better for all if we could actually get to the bottom of how such a large, well funded organisation such as the Home Office can go so wrong.
 
 
sleazenation
11:01 / 26.04.06
He's probably the last home secretary that isn't in some way responsible for this happening.

From my understanding it isn't that Howard is in any way vindicated of allowing such things to happen on his watch, although the number of foreign national in British prisons was a fraction of what it is now a decade ago, it is more that records only began to chart this sort of thing from 1999 onwards. Such fuck-ups might have happened under Howard, but there are no records to check by and what records exists suggest that even if that were the case the scale of the probnlem would have been far smaller.
 
 
nameinuse
11:07 / 26.04.06
That's reassuringly more evidence to despise the hypocrit after hearing him speak this morning. It's also even more suggestion of an organisational failure that's been going on for many years. I guess he's allowed to say anything he likes now he's free to be a backbench Tory firebrand.

The notion of personal accountability (which I believe is important for the heads of large organisations) really begins to break down with this kind of issue.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
17:02 / 26.04.06
A good day to bury bad news it seems - such as John Prescot's affair with his secretary...

I'm assuming yo're taking the piss... normally it would be the gossipy story that would be accused of detracting attention from the one that was actually important...
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
20:06 / 26.04.06
And let's not forget they were released after doing time for their crimes, so are criminals no more, unless they re-offend.
 
 
Axolotl
22:09 / 26.04.06
Good point Flowers, while there are questions that need to be answered, surely %having served their time they are fully rehabilitated and no longer pose any threat to the public%. Now I'm not fully up to date and I don't know what proportion of the individuals concerned are here legally and vice versa, but surely if you have the right to live here then comitting a crime had no more relevance than if any citizen commits a crime.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
12:06 / 27.04.06
I'm not sure if this is my crap knowledge of British current affairs speaking, but I think it's an unwitting stroke of brilliance to let 1000 'criminals' wander off into Britain without deporting them. I don't see how anyone can feel critical of Britain's migration policies and not feel some kind of happy at this event. Can I ask what most of those released had served time for? And if they'd served their time, then why shouldn't they live in Britain like all the British citizens who serve time then go free?

On the other hand, I can see a potential for this government incompetence to aid the cause of those who seek to tighten the borders. Scare-mongering: ie, "think of all those FOREIGN DARK-LOOKING CRIMINALS wandering around free."
 
 
Cat Chant
12:41 / 27.04.06
if they'd served their time, then why shouldn't they live in Britain like all the British citizens who serve time then go free?

I'm not sure about this either - what is the legal basis for their deportation? Were they in the country 'illegally' at the time that they committed their crimes, in which case their deportation is a separate legal matter, or... is it just that they don't have the same rights as British citizens, so the Government can kick them out of the country for their behaviour? Because this seems to be saying that it's okay for these people to reoffend as long as they do it in a different country. At what point does a government's responsibility to protect its citizens start tipping over into xenophobia? I think I'm feeling, like Mister Disco (if I'm reading him right), that the phrase 'foreign criminals' is potentially going to do a bit more narrative work than simply designating 'non-British citizens convicted of a crime'.

This might be a separate thread, though, as it doesn't have anything to do with Charles Clarke's specific responsibility. Am happy to take it to same.
 
 
Cat Chant
12:47 / 27.04.06
Just a PS: this line (from the linked Guardian article) seems key to me:

the Home Office said that... the foreign prisoners had been treated like other released prisoners

Is treating 'foreigners' like British citizens grounds for someone's resignation? I'm genuinely ignorant of the legal/institutional framework that makes that make sense.
 
 
sleazenation
12:47 / 27.04.06
Well yes - I think the legitimate concerns are quite complex revolving round both areas of government incompetance and risk of re-offending... which also serves to add another turn of the screw to common or garden immigrant fear...
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
14:48 / 27.04.06
I think it's just law, if you're an immigrant and you're convicted of any crime then, once you've done your time, you're automatically deported. It's all part of the zero tolerance.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
20:26 / 27.04.06
Deva, I think there's an argument that says information on the nationality of those in the prison system should be kept up to date. Mostly because it protects everyone from abuses within that system, particularly the prisoners themselves. Likewise there are potential problems for those people after they are released if they're then here illegally. I'm not sure that they're being treated like British citizens anyway because they don't necessarily all have citizenship?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
20:29 / 27.04.06
if you're an immigrant and you're convicted of any crime then, once you've done your time, you're automatically deported

And that's not true. They've traced 14 people and only deported five of them after deliberation. The government doesn't send people back to countries where they will be "at risk" (I don't agree with their definition of at risk but at least they have a bad definition rather than no definition).
 
 
Disco is My Class War
03:08 / 28.04.06
I'm not sure that designating the migreation issue and the law-breaking issue as separate matters necessarily solves the problem. How do people know if the fact that these people were undocumented or non-British citizens means they weren't treated more harshly under the legal system in the first place? This is why I asked about the offences (not that anyone here could necessarily give me a breakdown of 1000 legal misdeeds.) I bet most of them were convicted of really petty crimes, or for working illegally.

Here, a lot of asylum-seeker action groups focus on trying to prevent deportation or bad treatment of women and children, and to a lesser extent men who end up being incarcerated for years. They shy away from defending or supporting anyone caught doing 'illegal activities' -- even if it's just possession of drugs, or petty theft. It makes me angry, because I think that hierarchy of 'value' of asylum-seekers obscures how participation in black economies like theft and drug-dealing are a necessary response to laws making it impossible for undocumented migrants to work legally, or learn English, or get welfare support if they lose their job or become ill. That whole system is designed to make life more difficult for migrants and to repel people from coming. The criminal law/justice system is a part of that, too.
 
 
sleazenation
07:22 / 28.04.06
The focus has definitely been on the ex-cons who were convicted for murder, violent assualt and rape, which constitute only a fraction of the total number of ex-cons concerned.

This is perhaps understandable since these crimes are higher up the newsagenda anyway. Losing track of one released murderer or rapist is bad enough, but losing track of tens or hundredsups the ante somewhat...
 
 
Cat Chant
08:27 / 28.04.06
Deva, I think there's an argument that says information on the nationality of those in the prison system should be kept up to date.

There absolutely is, and thanks for this and your other helpful clarifications. I'm just trying to separate the actual grounds for concern out from the head-twisty bits of Guardian rhetoric which seem to be trying to justify a fear of 'foreigners' with an argument about how ex-prisoners might reoffend. The sentence you quote in your abstract is a good example - it leaves me with the impression that Clarke allowed over 1000... murderers to be freed, even though it does go on to qualify that as 'freed without being considered for deportation'.

I suppose the thing is that 'not keeping information about nationality up to date' sounds like a relatively minor bureaucratic oversight, and 'allowing 1000 foreign criminals, including murderers, to be freed' sounds like a huge fuck-up putting people's lives at risk, so I'm trying to figure out not only where the reality is but also how and why the 'foreign criminals' rhetoric is obscuring that reality.

Do you know what the legal basis for the deportations is, Nina? Would they have been liable for deportation if they hadn't committed crimes? It's the sort of thing I should really know about the legal system of my own country (and of course it might come in handy in the unlikely event that Tangent ever gets done for 'assaulting' a policeman on a demo) - are some forms of Leave to Remain conditional on not breaking any laws?

Mr Disco, the Guardian article in the first link says there are 1023 former prisoners in question, of whom:

five... had been convicted of committing sex offences against children. Seven had served time for other sex offences, 57 were convicted of violent offences and two convicted of manslaughter.

There were also 41 burglars, 20 drug importers, 54 convicted of assault and 27 of indecent assault. The Home Office admitted that it did not know the full details of the offences committed by more than 100 of the prisoners.


So that's 152 violent and/or sexual crimes (though I don't know where these 'murderers' have gone), 61 burglars/drug importers, 'more than 100' don't-knows, and presumably the remaining 710 (or less, depending on how many are in the 'more than 100') were convicted of offences too minor for anyone to want to list them.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:08 / 28.04.06
Do you know what the legal basis for the deportations is, Nina? Would they have been liable for deportation if they hadn't committed crimes?

Well I garner from the articles that I've read that the 1023 released prisoners were foreign nationals who committed crimes here and thus served their sentences here. That's the impression I'm getting anyway (at work or I'd try to find a specific reference). That complicates things because the answer to your second question depends on whether their country of origin is in the EU and involves visas etc. As far as I'm aware those figures haven't been released- has anyone else seen any clarification of these things?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
16:17 / 28.04.06
OK, Now Clarke is in the shit.

At least five of the foreign prisoners freed without being deported have gone on to commit more serious crimes.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the five had been convicted since release for offences relating to drugs, violent disorder and inflicting bodily harm. One of the five had also been accused of rape but there had not been enough evidence so far to prosecute.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
04:01 / 29.04.06
Thanks, Deva.

I'm not sure this changes my position any. The only difference between these people and British citizens is a piece of paper. If even 5 (or even 10) out of 1023 have gone on to re-offend, that has to be one of the lowest statistical re-offending rates in any criminal justice system, ever.

Reading the BBC article confirms my suspicion that this whole story will be used to force the Blair government to toughen its migration legislation. (As if the Blair government is 'soft' on undocumented migrants now!)
 
 
sleazenation
11:10 / 29.04.06
I'm not sure it will be used to force a tougher line on immigration as much as it is a convenient stick with which to beat the Blair government.

If even 5 (or even 10) out of 1023 have gone on to re-offend, that has to be one of the lowest statistical re-offending rates in any criminal justice system, ever. From the available evidence the 5 reoffenders are just the tip of the iceburg... we only know the whereabouts of about 79 out of the 1023. Of these 79, 5 are known to have reoffended.

But, yeah, no matter how statistically small the number of reoffenders are compared to the number of ex-cons convicted of strictly immigration related crime (a nebulous concept at best), I don't think this is going to to be much consolation to the victims of those repeat offenders... and this last consideration is what is going to sell the story to the public...
 
 
Cat Chant
11:41 / 29.04.06
I don't think this is going to to be much consolation to the victims of those repeat offenders... and this last consideration is what is going to sell the story to the public...

But isn't that a bit depressing, sleaze? Because since these offenders weren't released early or anything - the only bureaucratic difference between them and other repeat offenders is that they're not British citizens - the only stick to beat the Blair govt with is: "If we'd deported these prisoners at the end of their sentence, the people they beat/raped/murdered wouldn't have been in Britain."* I asked above where a government's duty to protect its citizens (above all the other people in the world) became xenophobia: I think the answer is "right here".
 
 
sleazenation
12:12 / 29.04.06
However, when ex-cons who ARE British citizens re-offend after completing their sentences it still makes the headlines. I'm not saying that the fact that these ex-con are not British citizens isn't adding an extra turn of the screw, upping the headline ante, but the story would still be front page news regardless...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
12:17 / 29.04.06
Deva, I'm in full agreement. Technically, though, it's a matter for the Home Secretary, whose job it really isn't to give a shit about people elsewhere. Note, I'm not saying this is a good way of organising things, by any means, in fact quite the opposite- but the job of Home Secretary is the one we pay him for, and he's not doing it very well.
 
 
Cat Chant
12:40 / 29.04.06
Sleaze:

when ex-cons who ARE British citizens re-offend after completing their sentences it still makes the headlines.

According to the Govt's Social Exclusion Unit (link), 58% of prisoners released in 1997 were convicted of another crime within two years. That would make a lot more headlines than I've seen - some sort of 'hook' is needed before it makes the headlines, I think. In this case I guess it's a combination between 'bureaucratic fuck-up' (= stick to beat Blair govt with) and the 'foreign' angle.

I think Stoats' point is probably more within the remit of the thread, though - and yes, it looks like Clarke isn't doing his job very well. I just want us to keep keeping an eye on the basis of the arguments that are being made.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
08:36 / 03.05.06
Hey guys, you know all those things I said didn't happen upthread. Let's hope someone fires Charles Clarke
 
 
SteppersFan
10:01 / 03.05.06
It increasingly looks to me like Clarke should go, not on the basis of "it happened on his watch") but because the problem got worse after he was told about it and (apparently) tried to do something about it, because he didn't tell his boss about it when he should, and because the subsequent offences were serious. While the Home Office is pretty disfunctional (though not as bad as Defra) that doesn't excuse Clarke failing to get right on top of this.

Apologies if this has been done to death elsewhere (if so I messed it), but Ganesh's comment upthread was picked up by the Guardian print edition in its "what the web is saying" column last week. I thought that was rather impressive. Bravo Ganesh!
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply