Rosie Kane MSP jailed for 14 days

[Fullyplumped]

This message is hidden because Fullyplumped is on your ignore list.

Ooh! First time!

 

[Fullyplumped]

Someone gets locked up for two weeks for non-payment of a £300 fine, a danger to nobody, costing the taxpayer thousands in court/police/prison time.

She can afford to pay. And my argument is that she should have her parliamentary salary of £1000 stopped for each week she's in the jail for non-payment.

 

[Fez909]

Seems like you have something against her (or the party)? I can't imagine anyone but the most rabid, anti-socialist, Daily Mail-reading wanker getting so worked up about what she's done 'wrong' as opposed to what she has done right.

Trident isn't going to just go away, you know. And what sort of message does it give if you're willing to pay a fine for going on a demonstration against something costing us 20 million quid a week?

The Law (backed by Fullyplumped) yesterday: You can demonstrate, but it'll cost you £300.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

If you got the jail, would you expect to get your wages for the time that you were unable to do your job?

Tbh, to my mind, Rosie Kane *is* doing her job, whether imprisoned or not.

Her job as a politician is to represent her constituents. In order to represent their views, she participated in a demonstration.

Everyone knows that lots of draconian laws have been introduced curbing people's right to demonstrate and express views contrary to government wishes, which is in itself wrong and anti-democratic.

If it's not possible for a politician to effect the change that represents the will of their constituents through parliament, because parliament has been effectively castrated by a 'presidential', i.e. dictatorial, brooks no opposition style of leadership, then perhaps it's part of the remit of being a politician to express the will of their constituents by other means, such as participating in public demonstrations?

If I were a politician and I was imprisoned for representing the views of my constituents, when that was part of my job, then of course I should continue to receive my salary.

If my job were different, say a school dinner lady or an engineer, and it wasn't part of my job to represent other people, then no, it wouldn't be appropriate.

 

[sevenstars]

Absolutely.

Although if anyone has a better idea of how to get rid of weapons of mass destruction that cost us a bloody fortune, and that the people of Scotland do not want, and that the parliament of Scotland apparently has no say in, do feel free to share them.

 

[detective-boy]

Someone gets locked up for two weeks for non-payment of a £300 fine, a danger to nobody, costing the taxpayer thousands in court/police/prison time. And you choose to blame the one who's locked up. What a tosser!!

But that's the problem isn't it - the non-payment of a fine amounts to a contempt of Court. If the defendant isn't willing to cooperate with the processes of the Court short of imprisonment, what option is there (I'm assuming she would fail to agree to cooperate with a Community Sentence too)?

I'm not sure why the Courts don't use the same attachment of earnings and other processes used routinely in the civil courts. I'd assumed they didn't have the relevant powers but I think they must. If they have them they should use them more. If they don't, they should be given them.

Anything to avoid fine defaulters being put in prison and costing even more.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Absolutely.

Although if anyone has a better idea of how to get rid of weapons of mass destruction that cost us a bloody fortune, and that the people of Scotland do not want, and that the parliament of Scotland apparently has no say in, do feel free to share them.

http://www.faslane365.org
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=179478

So when are we getting a U75 blockading group together then?

 

[danny la rouge]

Anyway, as a general principle, surely more MPs (MSP, MEP etc) should be locked up. It's the only language they understand, etc.

Rosie has my support and admiration in her stand. She is doing the decent thing. There is no comparison with attending parliament and gabbing away in "debates" that change nothing. More like this, please.

 

[Cobbles]

Corton Vale isnt a pleasant place to be.

Hardly surprising - it's a prison.

All she had to do was pay the fine and she wouldn't have been incarcerated.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Hardly surprising - it's a prison.

Interesting comment that.

Over half the women in corton vale are there for non-payment of fines (the average being £214) so we are not really talking about a collection of hardened criminals here. Certainly there are damaged women there - 98% drug addicted; 80% with a history of mental illness and 60% with a history of abuse.

But given that this is very possibly the first time for a long time that these women have had the opportunity of a detox, three meals a day and the time and space to get treatment and therapy, this could be a supportive and recouperative environment.

The reality is of course very different. Strip searching, prison clothes that dont fit and male prison staff in attendance with communal showers and toilets with half doors you can see over.

Fairweather, the former gov. of the jail has spoken of the time that he took over in the mid 90s
"A fourth death caused me to abruptly cancel a planned visit to Longriggend Remand Institution, and instead an expanded inspection team was rushed to Cornton Vale.

"Once more I was shocked, this time by the near bedlam conditions found in some areas such as the remand block. Comparisons with a Romanian orphanage sprang to my mind as I listened to desperate groups of frail and bewildered women."

Although there have been material improvements to the jail since, the overcrowding is worse and the proportion of damaged women that the jail is taking is higher.

 

[Azrael]

Everyone knows that lots of draconian laws have been introduced curbing people's right to demonstrate and express views contrary to government wishes, which is in itself wrong and anti-democratic.

If only "everyone" also knew that such laws are irrelevant to this case. Miss Kane was charged with breach of the peace, resisting arrest and blocking the highway. (source, BBC News). These offences are as old as the hills. (Or at least a damn sight older than Blair.) When she refused to pay fines she was well able to afford she was rightfully gaoled for contempt of court. This is entirely different to someone being jailed for an inability to pay fines, which, if it is the case, is a practise I'd unhesitatingly condemn as cruel and futile.

If I remember right Miss Kane has previously claimed chavs (or neds as the Burberry patronising delinquents are styled north of the border) are the victims of society, and has joined that obnoxious band of fellow travellers attending on Fidel Castro.

It is of course a matter for her unfortunate constituents, but hopefully this particular MSP will not be returned next time around.

 

[Azrael]

Rosie has my support and admiration in her stand. She is doing the decent thing. There is no comparison with attending parliament and gabbing away in "debates" that change nothing. More like this, please.

I know the Scottish Parliament is not a sovereign parliament, but I'd hardly call its powers "nothing". How exactly does changing oneself to a model submarine best "gabbing away" when the "gabbing" leads to laws? If you don’t want "gabbing", how should laws be effected?

 

[danny la rouge]

OK, you're confusing a few things here Azrael.

First of all you're doing what a lot of people do and confusing the parliament with the executive. In Westminster, the executive is called the Government. In Holyrood, the executive is called the Executive. The executive is the body with the power, not the parliament as a whole.

Second, I didn't imply there are no MSPs with power in the Scottish Parliament, I just meant Kane isn't one of them. (She is a member of a very small party, smaller in recent months, which isn't part of the governing coalition).

Third, the parliament as an institution is not a force for progressive change, it is the opposite. It is an institution designed to stall progressive change, to gum it up in committees, and to sap the radical being out of people who join it. Politicians may start their political life with principles, but the institution pretty soon "wakes them up" to what are euphemistically called "the realities"; they soon become debased and corrupted. Kane has shown she has at least resisted that process in some respects.

Occasionally good measures come out of parliaments, but these are usually because they had to. Ruling elites need to come to compromises in order to maintain the status quo, and existing measures which were in danger of crumbling need to be replaced. The Welfare State is a good example of the former, the SSP's role in abolishing Warrant Sales in Scotland is a good example of the latter.

In short, then, parliaments are there to give the impression of democracy in action, but in reality involve a sad parody of democracy and very little action.

 

[Azrael]

OK, you're confusing a few things here Azrael.

First of all you're doing what a lot of people do and confusing the parliament with the executive. In Westminster, the executive is called the Government. In Holyrood, the executive is called the Executive. The executive is the body with the power, not the parliament as a whole.

Where have I done that? I said the Scots parliament had a certain amount of power. I said nothing about its powers in relation to executive government.

Second, I didn't imply there are no MSPs with power in the Scottish Parliament, I just meant Kane isn't one of them. (She is a member of a very small party, smaller in recent months, which isn't part of the governing coalition).

Yep, I know, I was simply saying she'll have more chance of convincing people in debates than by getting herself banged up for 14 days. (And is no one questioning her about the substantial amount of taxpayer's money her actions have squandered? Some socialist.)

Third, the parliament as an institution is not a force for progressive change, it is the opposite. It is an institution designed to stall progressive change, to gum it up in committees, and to sap the radical being out of people who join it. Politicians may start their political life with principles, but the institution pretty soon "wakes them up" to what are euphemistically called "the realities"; they soon become debased and corrupted. Kane has shown she has at least resisted that process in some respects.

Many other members of parliament (in Westminster, I can't speak for Scotland) have "resisted the processs", such as it exists, without resorting to stunts like this.

Occasionally good measures come out of parliaments, but these are usually because they had to. Ruling elites need to come to compromises in order to maintain the status quo, and existing measures which were in danger of crumbling need to be replaced. The Welfare State is a good example of the former, the SSP's role in abolishing Warrant Sales in Scotland is a good example of the latter.

Yep, concessions are usually forced, but they can lead to real change; just not the wholesale overthrow of our economic system that some would like.

In short, then, parliaments are there to give the impression of democracy in action, but in reality involve a sad parody of democracy and very little action.

Parliament's aren't democracy at all, they're an institution of representative government. Democracy in its proper sense (referenda on every law) was thankfully lost to history with ancient Athens. If only they did lead to very little action; right now there's a lot of action, but not in the way most people here would like.

I can think of many, many ways to improve representative government, but getting yourself banged up for two weeks isn't one of them.

 

[danny la rouge]

Where have I done that? I said the Scots parliament had a certain amount of power. I said nothing about its powers in relation to executive government.

Post 42. You said "I'd hardly call its powers "nothing".", in response to my saying Rosie Kane was able to do little more than 'gab' in parliament.

 

[TAE]

She's paid a thousand pounds a week to represent me in the Parliament and she has chosen to get herself locked up for this ridiculous publicity stunt. She should have her salary suspended for the two weeks.

Somehow I doubt you would take that line if this were about a fellow Blairite.

 

[Azrael]

Post 42. You said "I'd hardly call its powers "nothing".", in response to my saying Rosie Kane was able to do little more than 'gab' in parliament.

Yes, I see the confusion. I was saying that debates do change things; I readily acknowledge that Miss Kane alone will be changing little, especially with her unique brand of rhetoric.

But it'll still be a damn sight more than sitting in a concrete box for 2 weeks.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Somehow I doubt you would take that line if this were about a fellow Blairite.

Would too! As with Mike Watson.

 

[TAE]

You are comparing her actions to arson?

 

[Fullyplumped]

You are comparing her actions to arson?

No, I'm replying to the the point you made, that I would take the same line - over pay while in jail, remember - with a fellow Blairite in the Scottish Parliament. I think you are deliberately misunderstanding to try to pick a fight.

 

[TAE]

You were complaining about her 'ridiculous publicity stunt'. That's hardly the same as arson.

 

[danny la rouge]

But it'll still be a damn sight more than sitting in a concrete box for 2 weeks.

The majority of the people of Scotland are opposed to nuclear weapons; opposed to their indescriminate nature; opposed to the cost of maintaining them; opposed to the vast cost of replacing them. In poll after poll, and over many decades, the Scottish people have overwhelmingly said they don't want nuclear weapons.

Indeed, when Jack McConnell was leader of Stirling Council, he declared it a "nuclear free zone" (an empty and foolish posture, since no nuclear weapons are sited in Stirling, and local government does not commission nuclear weapons), and set up "Peace Gardens", complete with monuments inscribed with CND symbols and sentiments of a unilateralist nature, in several locations throughout the Stirling area. Now, as our First Minister, he refuses to be drawn on the issue, prefering to wait until his bosses in Westminster tell him what to say.

MSPs can of course bring up the issue in debate, but these set pieces do nothing to influence policy, and there is no telling whether the issue will ever reach the papers. But Kane has managed to get the issue into the public realm; more than craven McConnell will do now that he actually has some influence over matters he was happy to posture about, to score points with the public, in the 1980s.

 

[Azrael]

The majority of the people of Scotland are opposed to nuclear weapons; opposed to their indescriminate nature; opposed to the cost of maintaining them; opposed to the vast cost of replacing them. In poll after poll, and over many decades, the Scottish people have overwhelmingly said they don't want nuclear weapons.

The vast majority of people also support control orders, secret courts, and "sacrificing liberty for security". The will of the majority isn't automatically correct, and while we live under representative government and not democracy (which we've never had, absurd redefinitions from on-high notwithstanding), that will isn't automatically law.

Indeed, when Jack McConnell was leader of Stirling Council, he declared it a "nuclear free zone" (an empty and foolish posture, since no nuclear weapons are sited in Stirling, and local government does not commission nuclear weapons), and set up "Peace Gardens", complete with monuments inscribed with CND symbols and sentiments of a unilateralist nature, in several locations throughout the Stirling area. Now, as our First Minister, he refuses to be drawn on the issue, prefering to wait until his bosses in Westminster tell him what to say.

While I have no liking for nuclear weapons, and consider the arms race to be folly of the worst kind, I find the argument that unilateral disarmament would have left Europe at the mercy of intimidation and bullying by Russian Sovietism a convincing one.

Vague pacifism manifested through nuclear free zones and peace gardens is easy and feels lovely, but doesn't do much to counter a ruthless enemy abroad. Disarmament advocates would have gotten more converts if they made fewer platitudinous statements about peace and global brotherhood and more about how the realm could be adequately defended against an enemy armed to the teeth with weapons we lacked.

MSPs can of course bring up the issue in debate, but these set pieces do nothing to influence policy, and there is no telling whether the issue will ever reach the papers. But Kane has managed to get the issue into the public realm; more than craven McConnell will do now that he actually has some influence over matters he was happy to posture about, to score points with the public, in the 1980s.

You can get just about any issue into the public realm by being noisily arrested for it. Doesn't mean it'll stay there, or win any more converts in power. In fact, such noisy lawlessness is the very thing guaranteed to alienate those in authority.

Miss Kane would be better spent campaigning against party cronyism and the whip system, changes that might actually happen and do so some good. But then one has to wonder how much stock a woman courting ethical pondlife like Fidel Castro gives to the prospect of a free parliament.

 

[Fullyplumped]

You were complaining about her 'ridiculous publicity stunt'. That's hardly the same as arson.

And I never said it was. You're definitely trolling.

 

[TAE]

I'm not trolling.

My query was whether your reaction was influenced by the reason why she was fined in the first place.

 

[danny la rouge]

Vague pacifism manifested through nuclear free zones and peace gardens is easy and feels lovely, but doesn't do much to counter a ruthless enemy abroad.

I agree. I was contrasting McConnell's behaviour now (when he has some actual clout) with then (when he didn't).

Furthermore, although I oppose weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, I am not a pacifist.

Azrael, it comes down to this: do we think acting through parliament is the best way to get things done, or do we not. I don't. In fact, I think it is the opposite; it's the way that dissent is emasculated.

 

[Lock&Light]

Rosie's just been given 14 days for non-payment of fines associated with an anti-Trident demo.

It goes to show how times change. In the early 60's, when my father refused to pay his fine for 'breaking the peace' at Faslane and went to prison, the fine was 14 pounds, and the sentence 30 days.

 

[Azrael]

Azrael, it comes down to this: do we think acting through parliament is the best way to get things done, or do we not. I don't. In fact, I think it is the opposite; it's the way that dissent is emasculated.

Yep, it does come down to this. Parliament in it's current form? I agree. Parliament in a radically different form, free from Party Whips and the executive stranglehold? No, I don't. Without parliament you have either direct democracy, anarchy or rebellion, all of which are infinitely worse.

I might support breaking an unjust law on principle, and I even support a right of armed resistance if free government has collapsed, but I don't support breaking perfectly sound laws out of frustration with parliamentary procedure. Unless things are at their gravest, the dangers that arise from the abandonment of lawful authority far outweigh the benefits.

 

[nino_savatte]

Still costs me and the rest of the electorate a thousand pounds a week. It's up to her what donations she makes to charity.

Perhaps you'd prefer it if she kept schtum, took her salary and voted with the government - non?

 

[danny la rouge]

Without parliament you have either direct democracy, anarchy or rebellion, all of which are infinitely worse.

As an anarchist myself, you can scarcely expect me to agree.