« bringing cake to a knife fight | Main | sex and drugs and guanxi and jail »

July 04, 2014

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518d3769e201a511dae888970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference other men's underwear:

Comments

Strategist

"Prison is not a holiday camp," said Steve Dagworthy of Prison Consultants.

http://2paragraphs.com/2013/12/ex-con-goldman-sachs-secretary-preps-white-collar-criminals-for-prison/

Good to see the entrepreneurial spirit wasn't beaten (or bummed) out of him!

chris y

RH will be 87 when he gets out. I think it's worth taking account of that.

I don't know what is the appropriate thing to do with very old people who are convicted of serious crimes, but I'm not sure that the prison system as presently constituted is it.

Igor Belanov

I think for people such as Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall the stain on their character and complete loss of their status is almost punishment in itself.

nick s

Really, prison rape jokes?

There'll be civil cases against Harris and Hall, I imagine. If you were really into pure Speak You're Branes retributive justice, you'd want them sent back home, sued out of whatever money they had, and followed by the red-tops and a mob in best Brass Eye fashion.

But neither punitive nor rehabilitative models fit well with people that age. It's not like they're old lifers heading for the geriatric wing, either: their convictions are fresh and their victims have often suffered for extended periods before being able to come forward.

Chris Williams

The problem with the logic of 'Mr X has suffered already through losing all that money and power, so let's not send him to prison for quite so long', is that it means that Mr Y, a poor and powerless bastard who has committed exactly the same crimes, gets to spend longer inside, simply because he was poor. This is not fair.

If we are to consider damage also, being attacked by someone who (a) got away with it at the time and (b) is still on telly a lot, gets to meet the Queen, got me to do the lights for him for nothing that one time at the Oxford Playhouse, etc, is going to be more damaging, all other things being equal, than the same crime committed by our notional Mr Y.

And yeah, I'm not big on prison rape jokes either.

Igor Belanov

I think it is the age thing that makes the difference, I wouldn't suggest a shorter sentence if they were in their 40s or 50s rather than 80s. Plus, I don't think it's the loss of money and power that would hit them the hardest, mainly the fact that being exposed as a sex offender does tend to completely destroy someone's reputation and standing.

dsquared

Good to see the entrepreneurial spirit wasn't beaten (or bummed) out of him!

Grow the fuck up eh, will you Strategist? There's a good lad.

Malcs

I don't think the prison service as presently constituted is the appropriate thing for many of the people inside it, for a variety of reasons (while not claiming anything in the way of expertise on the topic). I appreciate contributions to this thread don't necessarily entail implicit wider support either, but what is concerning is that it is only ever celebrity cases that seem to provide the context for any sort of a debate about prisons in the UK beyond red-top "OMG they can watch telly" type stuff. Nick Davies did a really excellent series of articles about prisons ages ago which I must reread at some point but they predictably didn't spark any kind of widespread reflection. Talking to friends about the right to vote among prisoners was the last glimpse I got of how unreflected-upon prisons are, even when they are approaching capacity.

john b

Huhne on Coulson in yesterday's Graun is an excellent example (no real need to link, the "this is a pointless and expensive way of doing no good to anybody" vibe is fairly obvious).

Someone on Twitter suggested that sending all MPs to jail for six months at the start of their term in power rather than a possible consequence would probably help legislation to be less terrible. I see no reason to disagree with this.

Phil

Huhne's column is really irritatingly vacuous. A criminologist friend of mine retweeted it saying "all right, it's special pleading, but the smug privileged git has got a point". I don't buy it. It's not exactly news that the tabs are vindictive, or that we lock up too many people, or that imprisoning a particular criminal generally doesn't make society a better place. What I'd want to hear is whether Huhne thinks there are ever any justifications at all for imprisonment - either utilitarian ("it'll make Fred a better person", "it'll make Fred's mates think twice") or non-utilitarian ("Fred deserves to suffer for what he did", "society needs to show its repugnance for people who do what Fred did") - and if so, why they don't apply to Coulson in particular.

I'd also like to hear whether Huhne has ever given a shit about prisoners before, and if the answer's No I'd like him to admit to having personal reasons for doing so now - not that we don't all know, but there's a big difference between the audience telling you to get down from your high horse and offering to get down yourself.

I can't get worked up about Coulson doing eighteen months in other men's skiddies, partly because I hate him but also because I feel as if the kind of thing he was getting up to might make the deterrent rationale more relevant than it usually is. I've never seen anything suggesting that plain ordinary volume crime is at all sensitive to variation in sentencing (as distinct from variation in the likelihood of getting caught), but I think white-collar crime, in its proper, full-on organisational deviance mode, might be different - as if a public statement to the effect of "no, mate, you don't get away with this, and actually it's not just a slap on the wrist" might actually work to encourage the others. But I admit that's just a gut feeling.

bert

Phil, don't know if you saw Matt Taibbi's latest. There are crimes and criminals for whom prison is expected by all concerned, and those for whom it's not.

I said, 'How are these guys not jail?'
He said to me, 'Have you been to a jail?
Jails are dangerous [...laughter...]
People get stabbed in jail.'

Interview starts around 14 mins: http://www.theextopia.com/the-daily-show-2014-04-07-matt-taibbi-hdtv-x264-crooks/

bert

These days, TV presenters can expect jail for sexual offences. Rock stars to date have not been put under the same scrutiny, the fullblown paedophilia of Gary Glitter being the high bar that groupie-fingerers sail comfortably beneath.

MPs have become a strange portion of the elite who actually do end up in jail for fiddling their expenses. Previously they were subject to wage restraint too. Sucks to be them.

Guano

"Huhne's column is really irritatingly vacuous."

Yes, indeed, particularly as it comes at the end of more than 5 years of various pundits saying "It isn't a story" or "Celebs were asking for it" or "It's just payback by the Labour Party for XXX"; and several years of the police failing to get their act together. Murdoch was getting the message that his papers could get away with just about anything; hopefully he's getting a different message now.

chris y

Rock stars to date have not been put under the same scrutiny, the fullblown paedophilia of Gary Glitter being the high bar that groupie-fingerers sail comfortably beneath.

How's Roy Harper doing these days? Be it said that I don't think groupie-fingering is anybody's business provided all parties are of age, but.

bert

"... provided all parties are of age ..."
Reckon a rock-n-roll Yewtree would have nothing to work with? Or are we collectively deciding that musicians are in a different category from TV presenters, for reasons we'd need Matt Taibbi to explain?

You might not unearth a rock-n-roll Saville - you'd need to lift a lot of rocks before you found another one like him. But a rock-n-roll Stuart Hall? Why on earth not?

On a slightly different topic, if I remember rightly both Pete Townshend and the italian one from Massive Attack were arrested (but not charged) when their credit cards were traced from internet paedophilia sites. Both said they were conducting 'research'.

The edges of who gets charged and who doesn't are very fuzzy.

dsquared

On a slightly different topic, if I remember rightly both Pete Townshend and the italian one from Massive Attack were arrested (but not charged) when their credit cards were traced from internet paedophilia sites. Both said they were conducting 'research'.

Townshend was "research". Robert De Naja was very unfortunate - he was one of the dozens and dozens of people who were completely innocent but whose credit card details were in the "Landslide" data dump as a result of credit card fraud and poor record-keeping.

Alex

It would be really bad news if the fact there was a fuck-normous miscarriage of justice regarding Landslide was lost from sight thanks to Jimmy Savile.

Igor Belanov

I take it the great conspiracy to cover up 'rock and roll' paedophiles failed when it came to that bloke from Lostprophets.

chris y

But a rock-n-roll Stuart Hall?

That would be Harper, as already mentioned. I don't think, Mick Jagger's distasteful "Stray Cat Blues" notwithstanding, that there's a systemic culture of paedophilia in rock and roll, if for no other reason than that successful rock stars can have all the free sex they want with adults for no effort on their part, and most people aren't nonces. I'm sure there are a few in the industry, but probably not many more per capita than in the general population.

bert

Embarrassed to have repeated the slur on 3D from Massive Attack. No excuse other than ignorance, which is no excuse.

One other admission: I have no idea who Roy Harper is.
I think I share that one with a fat majority of the country.

chris y

Roy Harper is best described as the man who influenced everybody you have heard of, more or less between 1967 and 1975 or whenever punk got going. Extremely well known to people who are interested in the music of that period for whatever reason, and unknown otherwise, at least in part because he's been mostly retired for decades.

Phil

the man who influenced everybody you have heard of, more or less between 1967 and 1975

No, that's Dylan, unless it's Soft Machine. Harper was (is) a self-important clever-clever moaner with an acoustic guitar, a huge and largely baleful influence on the flourishing genre of "self-important clever-clever moaner with an acoustic guitar". I've never understood his appeal - I heard one of his songs when I was 13 and thought "huh - that's a bit overstated and immature". Mind you, I've never liked Leon Rosselson either, and people I respect rave about him.

jamie

relatedly, in today's venture into Savilieana, we learn that he wrote a work of theology called God'll Fix it

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jul/09/plain-sight-jimmy-savile-review-biography-david-hare?CMP=twt_gu

...which really should be prefaced by the phrase 'kill them all...'

dsquared

I would like to confirm, more for the benefit of lost google searchers than for any of the regulars here, that the author of that Savile biography is someone else with the same name rather than me.

Alex

Modest, too!

The comments to this entry are closed.

friends blogs

blobs

Blog powered by Typepad

my former home