Monthly Archives: April 2018

Arts, Drama, Legal

You Be The Jury: The Case of The Sleeping Prisoner

The Presiding Judge

. Similar The Case Of The Flying Toy…

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY:

Escape from jail is a serious crime, even if the person was first arrested for a minor offence.

Such is the case before you today. Since we are in criminal court, the State is the accuser.

The State contends that Soney Najac, who was arrested for sleeping on a park bench, broke out of jail. But Mr Najac claims his cell door was unlocked. He just pushed it open and walked out.

The police officer, Constable Thomas Nash, testifies as follows:

“It was about two o’clock in the morning and I was making my rounds in Vernon Park. No one is supposed to be there after dark.

“I was walking along when I heard a strange sound. At first, I thought it might be thunder, but it was a starry night without any clouds. Then I realised what the sound was. Someone was snoring. I turned on my flashlight and there was this man on a bench. He was sound asleep.

“I tried to wake him without success. I couldn’t leave him there, so I figured that the best thing to do was to strap him on to my motorcycle and drive down to police headquarters.”

The stranger’s wallet provided more information. His name was Soney Najac and the address inside showed he was from a foreign country.

The constable continues his testimony:

“The man was still asleep when I got to the station, so I carried him into a cell. It was my turn for night duty and I relieved the officer in charge.

“At about six o’clock that morning, I went to the coffee shop around the corner to bring back some coffee and delicacies. It couldn’t have taken more than a few minutes.

“When I got back, I was shocked to find the cell door open. The prisoner had escaped.”

All police were alerted. That afternoon Soney Najac was arrested, but he was looking in a shop window. This time it was a more serious charge: escaping from jail.

The State described its theory of how Mr Najac managed his escape. EXHIBIT A is a diagram showing the inside of the police station. It has two cells. On one wall is a box containing keys. Mr Najac was in the cell nearest the wall.

Two close-up photographs showing the key box are presented as EXHIBIT B. They show the box both open and closed. Each key is hanging on a large ring. If someone in a cell had a long pole, it would be possible for him to reach the key box.

This, the State contends, is how the breakout occurred. It enters as EXHIBIT C a photograph showing a broom that was found near Soney Najac’s cell.

The State believes that the prisoner grabbed the broom, reached over to the box, and caught the keyring on one end. This was his means of escape.

I will now read from the cross-examination of Constable Nash by Mr Najac’s court-appointed lawyer:

Q How can you be sure the cell door was locked?

A I have been a policeman in this town for fifteen years. In all that time I never left a cell unlocked. What makes anyone think I did it this time?

Q Did you find the door to the key box closed following the prisoner’s departure?

A It had to be. The door is on a spring and it swings closed automatically.

Q Then how was it possible for Mr Najac to use the broom to loop the key?

A That’s not hard to do. The ring on the front of the box can be pulled open with the broom handle. Then you can quickly catch the big keyring on the end of the broom before the door shuts. I know it can be done. I’ve tried it myself.

 

Soney Najac testified on his own behalf. Since he could not speak English, his testimony was presented through an interpreter.

“My name is Soney Najac. I arrived in your country just two weeks ago. A friend told me I might find a job in this area. So, I took a bus to your town.

“I was tired from the trip and didn’t have much money. When it got dark, I walked into the park and saw a bench. I hadn’t had much sleep for the past few days, so I lay down on the bench for the night.

“When I woke up, I didn’t know where I was. All I knew was that I was in this room with bars. No one else was around.

“I stood up and leaned against the door. It started to move, so I pushed it open and walked out. I never knew I had been arrested.”

Mr Najac’s lawyer continues his defence:

“As proof that Mr Najac did not use a key to escape from his cell, your attention is again drawn to EXHIBIT B. This photograph was taken shortly after the alleged breakout occurred.

“You will note the keys to both cells are hanging on their hooks. If Mr Najac had used the key to escape, it is unlikely that he would have taken the time to put it back on its hook.

“The State’s theory of the escape is hard to believe. The truth is simply this: Soney Najac woke up, didn’t know where he was, found the cell door open – and just walked out!”

 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY:

You have just heard the Case of The Sleeping Prisoner. You must decide the merit of the State’s accusation. Be sure to carefully examine the evidence in EXHIBITS A, B, and C.

Did Soney Najac escape from jail using a key? Or, did he just walk out through the unlocked door?

EXHIBITS:

 

Standard
Britain, Economic, Government, National Security, Russia, Society, United States

Russia’s ‘tremendous weapon’

CYBER WARFARE

SECURITY CHIEFS have warned that tens of thousands of British families’ computers have been targeted by Russia – potentially paving the way for a devastating cyber-attack.

. You might also like to read The terrifying era of internet warfare

They fear the Kremlin is trying to identify vulnerabilities allowing it to “lay a foundation for offensive future operations” that could cripple Britain.

The concern is that Russia could take control of these devices then use them to overload vital infrastructure systems such as banks, water supplies, energy networks, emergency services and even the Armed Forces.

A so-called “man-in-the-middle” attack could be carried out anonymously because the Government would not know who had hacked into these systems in UK homes.

Security chiefs said they feared Moscow-backed hackers were trying to create a “tremendous weapon” to unleash in “times of tension”. Britain’s eavesdropping agency GCHQ, the White House and the FBI have launched an unprecedented joint alert about “malicious cyber activity” carried out across the globe by the Kremlin.

They warned that Moscow was mounting a campaign to exploit vulnerable devices and threaten “our respective safety, security, and economic well-being”. It followed a recent warning that Vladimir Putin was ready to retaliate for the Western air strikes on Syria, where Bashar al-Assad’s regime is backed by Russia.

Britain has been tracking the online activity for more than a year, a spokesperson for the National Cyber-Security Centre (NCSC) said.

Kremlin-sponsored actors were said to be using “compromised routers” to conduct “spoofing” – when the attacker hides their identity – to “support espionage… and potentially lay a foundation for future offensive operations”.

In an unusual transatlantic briefing the NCSC said there are millions of machines being globally targeted, with the intent of trying to seize control over connectivity.

“In the case of targeting providers of internet services, it’s about gaining access to their customers to try to gain control over the devices.

“The purpose of these attacks could be espionage, it could be the theft of intellectual property, it could be positioning or use in times of tension. All of the attacks have directly affected the UK.”

The FBI says that US government experts had found themselves “unwittingly on the frontline of the battle” against Moscow’s cyber-attacks. The Bureau said that, if Russia were able to hack into a wireless router then “own it”, hackers could monitor all the traffic going through it. “It is a tremendous weapon”.

A White House cyber security co-ordinator warned the Kremlin that the US and Britain would respond to any attack. The UK has previously carried out a huge cyber offensive against Islamic State, and the US attacked the Iranian nuclear programme by launching the Stuxnet cyber- attack in 2010 which wholly deactivated the programme’s centrifuges.

The US and UK insist they are pushing back hard and say that cyber activity must be stopped and opposed at every turn. They are confident, however, that Russia has already carried out a co-ordinated campaign to gain access to enterprise, small office routers and residential routers – the kind of things that everyone has in their homes.

The NCSC, FBI and US department of homeland security warned that Russian state-sponsored actors were trying to spy on individuals, industries and the Government.

A joint UK-US statement said “multiple sources” – including private and public sector cyber security research organisations and allies – had reported such activity to governments. The communique said: “Russia is our most capable hostile adversary in cyberspace so dealing with their attacks is a major priority.”

A UK Government spokesperson said: “This is yet another example of Russia’s disregard for international norms and global order – this time through a campaign of cyber espionage and aggression, which attempts to disrupt governments and destabilise business. The attribution of this malicious activity sends a clear message to Russia – we know what you are doing, and you will not succeed.”

 

THE warning from intelligence agencies that Russia is launching a cyber offensive against our Government, infrastructure, companies and even families, with the intention of spreading chaos and panic, is hugely significant.

It is a chilling reminder for everyone – if one were needed – that for Vladimir Putin, bombs, missiles and poison gas aren’t the only weapons of war.

Standard
Britain, Government, Politics, Society

The Windrush generation

BRITAIN

West Indian residents arrived in Britain after the Second World War.

Intro: The Windrush scandal has humiliated many of our citizens and is a bad stain on the UK

MANY immigrants from Commonwealth countries have lived in the UK for decades. A vast number of them have now been told by the Home Office that they are in the UK illegally and have been ordered to either prove their status or leave. British citizens welcomed here as children have been treated as mere numbers in a bureaucratic exercise flawed by the fact the British Government itself failed to retain the necessary records relating to the citizenship of many of these people. Most came from the Caribbean between 1948 and 1971. The first that many became aware of their questioned status was when they received official government letters informing them they were illegal immigrants. What an utter humiliating thing to happen to people who have every right to consider themselves British.

The fact that this bureaucratic mess isn’t scandal enough, the adjoining political response to it has been woeful and pitifully lacking. By the time Home Secretary Amber Rudd got to her feet in the House of Commons earlier this week, scores of British citizens had suffered the crass indignity of being treated as unwanted strangers in their home country. Labour MP David Lammy was quite right to describe this as a matter of national shame. The Home Secretary has promised the establishment of a task force in the Home Office which will help members of the Windrush generation, ensuring none lose access to public services and other entitlements. Given the way many have been treated this is the least they should expect.

It is impossible to consider the plight of the Windrush generation without considering that their race may have had something to do with the careless way their citizenship and naturalisation status was dealt with. It is perfectly reasonable to question that, if those affected had been white, any such problems would have arisen. Amber Rudd was right to offer an unreserved apology to those treated so disgracefully by a Home Office and Government that loses sight of individuals. She must, however, go much further.

Those who have suffered due to bureaucratic incompetence should have the right to claim compensation for the indignity and injury they have suffered. At the very minimum, anyone forced out of pocket because they had to hire legal counsel or apply again for citizenship should have all costs reimbursed. The Windrush scandal is a stain on the UK and the sooner it’s cleared up, the better.

 

THE Home Office couldn’t have made a more humiliating hash of dealing with the toxic row over the Windrush generation.

As soon as it became clear that Caribbean migrants who have lived, worked, paid taxes and raised families here for 50 years or more were being stripped of their residency rights, ministers should have acted immediately and without prevarication to address this cruel and inhumane injustice.

Instead, they stalled and vacillated, giving the impression of callous indifference to the plight of decent people who have lost their jobs, been denied state benefits and NHS care and even forced out of Britain. Access to UK bank accounts were also denied.

The utter fiasco continued as Amber Rudd and Immigration Minister Caroline Nokes admitted that many may already have been deported and, astonishingly, didn’t know how many, or who they were.

The Windrush generation from countries such as Jamaica were invited here to help post-war reconstruction and have hugely enriched our cultural life. To even consider deporting them – especially when countless foreign criminals are allowed to live here with impunity – is a grotesque betrayal.

 

UNDER the 1971 Immigration Act, all Commonwealth citizens already living in the UK were given indefinite leave to remain. But the Home Office did not keep records of those given to stay or issue any documents confirming this. Many people never applied for passports or became naturalised, so it became virtually impossible to prove that they were in the UK legally.

Changes to immigration law – introduced under Labour in 2006, then toughened by the Coalition in 2014 – was aimed primarily to weed out visa over-stayers.

Thousands of landing card slips recording the arrival of migrants, including those of the Windrush generation, were destroyed in 2010. It is these slips that would have proven important to establish citizenship. Instead, people would be sent a standard government letter which said: ‘We have searched our records, we can find no trace of you.’ Many were then deported.

David Lammy who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on race and community, said: ‘This reveals that the problems being faced by the Windrush generation are not down to one-off bureaucratic errors but as a direct result of systemic incompetence, callousness and cruelty.’

Standard