Dying on the insideUKWatch.net - 17 Sep 2008At the time of going to press (and almost a month after she died) the exact cause of Pauline Campbell?s death remains unclear. At her funeral in Whitchurch a former work colleague said simply: ?She died of a broken heart?. Beyond the church and at the cemetery, fellow peace and prison campaigners Joan Meredith and Helen John stood silently holding a single banner. It read ?Home Office Responsible for Pauline?s Death?. Helen John explained ?Pauline?s life could have been turned around if there had been the slightest sign of movement?. All the work that everyone has done has not been recognised and honoured by the Home Office. Her voice has fallen on deaf ears. Pauline was a loving mother and a middle-class woman living in a small village in rural Cheshire. What happened to her only child Sarah Elizabeth Campbell was every parent?s nightmare ? Sarah survived rape, but then suffered the ravages of drug addiction and self-harm and finally died, aged 19, ?in the care of the state? in Styal prison in Cheshire in 2003. With Sarah?s death Pauline?s life changed completely. She described what happened in the report she wrote for the organisation Inquest on 2 April called Death at the Hands of the State: ?I will never forget the cruel way she was treated, and the shock of her death. Until five years ago, I must admit I knew very little about prisons ? just that they were not very nice places, and people sometimes died there… ...When Sarah arrived at Styal, she was strip-searched twice, and taken to the segregation/punishment block. The following day, she swallowed a quantity of prescription antidepressant tablets, but then told staff what she had done. Unbelievably, prison staff, including a nurse, walked out of the cell, locked the door and left her alone. There were ?avoidable delays? before the prison called an ambulance. When paramedics arrived, they were stopped at the gates for eight minutes before being allowed through. Sarah was unconscious when they reached her… In 2005 the jury did not return a suicide verdict, because it was clear Sarah had not intended to die. The jury did say though that a ?failure in the duty of care? contributed to her death. In 2006 the Home Office accepted full liability for her death, and admitted her human rights were violated under the European Convention on Human Rights. Shamefully there was no apology for the death of my only child?. Pauline?s work with Inquest started just a few weeks after Sarah died. It began as her way of holding the government to account for the death of her daughter. Inquest is the only organisation in England and Wales which provides a specialist, comprehensive advice service on contentious deaths and their investigation to bereaved people, lawyers, other advice and support agencies, the media, parliamentarians and the wider public. Pauline contributed to the research report Dying on the Inside (2008) which provides a comprehensive examination of their casework on women?s deaths in prison from 1990-2007. The way in which Sarah died was not unusual. The report charts a massive increase in self-inflicted deaths and the meltdown of the women?s prison system. Pauline also worked closely with other bereaved families and the organisation United Friends and Family. The report of their ninth annual march held in 2007 shows her solidarity. ?Upon arriving at Downing Street the silent procession became a noisy explosion of anger led by Janet Alder whose brother Christopher suffocated on the floor of Hull Police Station, while officers made fun of him. The police attempted to enforce the SOCPA ban on megaphones. So Pauline Campbell took hold of the mic to remind them that she had been arrested 14 times and that previous attempts to prosecute her had failed miserably. The megaphone remained in use for the rest of the event.? (Indymedia) Direct action Frances Brooke of the Howard League has called her ?a suffragette for penal reform?. It?s a little known fact that the direct action Pauline became best known for had its roots in the peace movement. Joan Meredith remembers: ?She came to see me in the August (2003), and she was telling me about all that she had done. She had already been on Newsnight, written letters, written to newspapers and she was beginning to feel she was getting nowhere. She was feeling as if she was banging her head against a brick wall. So I told her about Trident Ploughshares – and she was interested. It was only after the first vigil in the January of 2004, Sarah had been dead a year, that she made up her mind what she wanted to do. I told her what we did, and how we had come to take direct action…we felt that we?d reached a point where we had to do something?. Every time a woman died in prison, Pauline would be there, with supporters, symbolically stopping the prison vans on the grounds that a woman had died in the ?care? of the prison, and therefore it was not safe to bring further prisoners to that jail. Who will do this job now? At Pauline Campbell?s funeral service, held in Whitchurch last month, many tributes were made, including this from Nikki Adams of the English Collective of Prostitutes: ?She opposed any measure which would result in any women being imprisoned. As a member of the Safety First Coalition which we coordinate, she spoke forcefully against the compulsory rehabilitation of sex workers, which was part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. Her lobbying helped us defeat those clauses in that bill. We loved her. If her commitment to justice was an ?obsession? it was the kind of obsession we need more of ? an antidote to the cowardly, uncaring and defeated approach of so many professionals. She set a standard to live by.? There are other important questions to answer about how the work Pauline did will be documented. Where is her computer? Do the police still have it along with historically important information about this woman?s life? The justice movement stays with us, and the hope that the powerful alliances Pauline helped to build ? reaching across human rights and peace movements ? will re-emerge in a new form, stronger than ever. Frances Laing is a freelance writer and journalist.
The price of free speechUKWatch.net - 17 Sep 2008So we saw him off. Last week, in a victory for both medicine and free speech, Matthias Rath dropped his libel suit against the Guardian. But it seems amazing that the courts of this country allowed him to pursue this case. Rath, a German doctor, appears to have encouraged South Africans suffering from HIV to stop using anti-retroviral drugs and take his vitamin pills instead. Several of them died. It?s an important story, which shows that journalists are of some use after all. But the Guardian stood to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds for having the impudence to publish it. This newspaper is big enough to look after itself, and on Monday it was also able to settle its legal dispute with Tesco. But the net that Rath used is now being cast to catch ever smaller fry. In the past few days, Sheffield Wednesday Football Club has dropped its cases against some of its fans(1,2). I am now allowed to write about the worst example of legal bullying I have ever seen. The club has had serious problems, on and off the pitch, and many of its fans use an internet forum – owlstalk.co.uk – to discuss them. They make the kind of comments you would expect to find on any talk board, and which would normally be forgotten within 15 minutes. Two and half years ago the club launched its first suit. Only now have the people who posted these comments emerged blinking from the labyrinthine nightmare of English law. As Geoffrey Robertson and Andrew Nicol explain in their excellent book Media Law, England?s defamation laws date back to a statute created in 1275. The criminal offence of scandalum magnatum was devised to protect ?the great men of the realm? from stories which could stir the people against them. Three centuries later, the Star Chamber allowed noblemen to launch civil actions for libel, to provide them with an alternative to duelling(3). They made prolific use of this privilege until Fox?s Libel Act of 1792 determined that the claimant (the person bringing the case) had to prove that the words used against him were false, malicious and damaging. This means that libel law 216 years ago was more liberal and more in tune with the principle of free speech than it is today. During the 19th and 20th centuries, Robertson and Nicol show, ?the common law was re-fashioned to serve the British class system from the perspective of ? the Victorian club.? To protect wealthy people from criticism, the courts reversed Fox?s burden of proof. They created a presumption that any derogatory remark made about a gentleman must be false. This remains the case today. Defamation differs from all other civil or criminal laws in Britain: the burden of proof is on the defendant. The law remains the privilege of gentlemen, by which I mean people who are able to afford costs that often exceed a million pounds on each side. Cases tend to be resolved by sheer financial might, as the plaintiffs bankrupt the defendants, or force them to give in before their money runs out. This ensures that the law retains its 13th Century function. It guarantees that most attempts to hold the wealthy to account founder before they are launched, as people bite their tongues for fear of losing their homes. Since 1879, corporations have also been able to sue for libel(4). The inequality of arms this causes is compounded by the fact that there is no legal aid for defamation cases. Lawyers are now allowed to fight these suits on a no-win, no-fee basis, but this freedom is double-edged: if a defendant loses, he could end up paying double the claimant?s legal costs. This is the context in which Sheffield Wednesday went to court to demand the names and email addresses of 14 people who had posted comments on owlstalk. Here are some of the comments over which the club sued. ?What an embarrassing, pathetic, laughing stock of a football club we?ve become?. ?Another day, another blunder. I doubt even Leeds were in such a mess this time last summer, and look what happened to them?. ?I am waiting with baited breath to hear who the Chuckle Brothers have signed after their trip to watch players abroad. With the amount of money they have to spend and the wages they can offer the best we can hope for is that little known Transvestitavian International I.Sukblodov, who last scored in a brothel.?(5) Such comments were deemed by the Sheffield Wednesday?s lawyers to be ?false and seriously defamatory messages?(6) which had caused grievous injury to the delicate flowers who ran the club. (They should try posting an article on the Guardian?s Comment is Free site). The lawyers threatened ?proceedings to include claims for injunctions, damages, interest and legal costs (which could be substantial).?(7) The judge threw most of the application out, but instructed the forum?s host to reveal the email addresses of four of the posters, whose remarks seem to me to be almost as trivial as those he dismissed(8). This took place a year ago, and the long shadow of the law hung over the posters until the club?s lawyers dropped the case last week. Another case dates back to February 2006, when the club sent a warning letter to a fan called Nigel Short. When he received the letter he offered to apologise and to change his comments, but the club rejected this. He was able to fight it only because he found a lawyer – Mark Lewis of George Davies Solicitors in Manchester – who was incensed by this case and was prepared to represent him. ?I?ve had two and a half years of worrying I was going to lose my house?, Short tells me. ?It?s been hell. If Mark hadn?t done this no win, no fee, I would have been bankrupt by now.?(9) In November 2007, Short was diagnosed with throat cancer. The case continued. But on Wednesday 3rd September he announced that his treatment had been successful(10). On Friday 5th, the club dropped the case and agreed to pay his costs. It issued a press release which suggested it had done so because of ?Mr Short?s medical condition.?(11) I asked the club whether it had abandoned the case because it knew that Nigel would now live to fight the action. It has refused to answer my questions.(12) The point of this story is not that the directors of Sheffield Wednesday have behaved like a bunch of petulant bullies. It?s that the law equips them to do so. Most people see this as an issue only for journalists. But the internet ensures that the law of defamation now threatens anyone who stands up for what he believes to be right. This autumn the English branch of PEN, which defends the freedom to write, will launch a campaign against our libel law. But where are the rest of you? Where are the petitions, the public protests, the lobbies of parliament? Why is this 13th-Century law still permitted to stifle legitimate dissent? Wake up Britain: your freedoms are disappearing into the pockets of barristers and billionaires. www.monbiot.com References: 1. K&L Gates, 9th September 2008. SWFC and others v Neil Hargreaves. Notice of discontinuance. 2. Irwin Mitchell, 5th September 2008. SWFC and Kaven Walker v Nigel Short. Notice of discontinuance. 3. Geoffrey Robertson QC and Andrew Nicol QC, 2008. Media Law, 5th Edition. Penguin, London. 4. Geoffrey Robertson, pers comm. 5. K&L Gates, 10th August 2007. Schedule attached to letter sent to George Davies Solicitors. 6. SWFC and Others, 14th September 2007. Claim Form v Neil Hargreaves. No.HQ07X03169. 7. K&L Gates, 10th August 2007. Letter to George Davies Solicitors. 8. Richard Parkes QC, Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Queen?s Bench Division, 2nd October 2007. Approved Judgment, Case No: HQ07X03169. 9. Nigel Short, pers comm. 10. http://nigelshort.blog.co.uk/2008/06/24/2008/07/27/they-say-a-picture-pa… 11. SWFC Ltd, 5th September 2008. Statement. This appears to have been removed from SWFC?s site, but I have retained a copy. Please write to me if you want to see it. 12. Colin Wood, SWFC, 15th September 2008. By email.
Transatalantic bomb plot trial collapsesUKWatch.net - 17 Sep 2008The conclusion of the trial of those accused of plotting to blow up transatlantic airlines in 2006 has created a major crisis for the Labour government and the security services. It has revealed the gaping disconnect between public opinion and official propaganda on the ?war on terror.? So great is the damage that within days of the verdict the Crown Prosecution Service announced its intention to demand a retrial. On August 10, 2006, British security services dramatically announced they had foiled an imminent attack on a number of transatlantic planes flying out of London. Described as the most significant terror plot since 9/11, the early hours saw a series of raids in southern England and the detention of some 24 young men, predominantly British citizens of Pakistani origin, including a Muslim charity worker and an employee at Heathrow airport. London?s Heathrow airport?the world?s largest in terms of international passenger traffic?was shut down, thousands of flights were cancelled and an indefinite ban was imposed on hand luggage. Police and government officials reported that the men had intended to use liquid chemicals, disguised as drinks, to cause a series of explosions on up to 17 aircraft in midflight. Deputy Commissioner Paul Stephenson of the Metropolitan Police said the intention was to ?cause untold death and destruction and, quite frankly, to commit mass murder.? Then Home Secretary John Reid said that the scale of the plot was potentially larger than 9/11 and that the loss of life ?would have been on an unprecedented scale.? In the United States, President George W. Bush told a press conference that the plot was a ?historical reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation.? Michael Chertoff, as homeland security secretary, said the plan was ?suggestive of an Al Qaeda plot,? was ?well advanced? and ?really quite close to the execution phase.? Some two years later?after a five-month trial costing 10 million?on September 8, a jury was unable to agree that such a plot ever existed, and failed to convict the eight men on trial on the prosecution?s central charge of plotting to explode transatlantic aircraft. The court had heard that ?martyrdom videos? recorded by six of the defendants had been found in which they threatened death and destruction, and that evidence gathered by undercover officers and through surveillance techniques proved that the men had established a bomb factory in an east London flat. The prosecution said that evidence also established that the bomb plot had been hatched in Pakistan and that when defendant Abdulla Ahmed Ali was arrested, he had a ?blueprint? for the plot in a pocket diary. A computer memory stick containing details of flights and airport security arrangements had also been uncovered. The eight denied such a plan. Ali said that the videos were intended to form part of a documentary highlighting Western attacks on Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon. Ali, Assad Ali Sarwar and Tanvir Hussian pled guilty to conspiracy to cause explosions, but said these were only ever intended as a publicity stunt to draw attention to the video and were never intended to cause harm. The jury rejected this claim and convicted the three of conspiracy to murder. But it was deadlocked on the central charge of conspiring to explode airliners. The four other men?Waheed Zaman, Umar Islam, Arafat Waheed Khan and Ibrahim Savant?had admitted conspiring to cause a public nuisance. But the jury was unable to reach verdicts on them in relation to charges of conspiracy to murder. Even more damaging from the standpoint of the prosecution?s case, Mohammed Gulzar?who was described as the plot?s ringleader but who always denied any involvement?was acquitted of all charges. He cannot be retried, but the Home Office has said that Gulzar, who is from Birmingham, will be subject to control orders curtailing his movements. Furious response to the verdict The verdict has brought a furious response from the government, security services and the media. The trial judge, Mr. Justice Calvert-Smith, has been singled out for criticism. He had led a slipshod trial, it was alleged, in which he had pandered to the juror?s every whim?allowing them a holiday, and even time off for a family emergency. Given the need to maintain juror continuity in such a lengthy case, the judge (in this instance, a former director of public prosecutions) was in fact required to set a holiday period at the start of the hearing and to make certain arrangements for other exigencies. After the jury had deliberated for 11 days without reaching agreement on the central charge, the judge had directed that he would accept a majority verdict of 11-1 or 10-2, which it subsequently failed to achieve. The jury itself has also been denounced as lax and incompetent. Typical of this approach was Max Hastings in the Daily Mail, who complained that the jurors? conclusions could only lead people to assume ?either that those responsible for protecting us do not know what they are doing; or that some jury members are stunningly indifferent to the activities of allegedly would-be mass-murderers.? Amidst suggestions that the verdict proved it was necessary that lengthy, ?complex? trials should not be heard by jurors, Frances Gibb in the Times cautioned that ?jurors must ensure that they do not fuel the opinion that, in long trials at least, their time is up.? In reality, the jury demonstrated a high degree of concern for points of law. They rejected the three main defendants? claim that they were only seeking minor explosions for propaganda purposes, but were not satisfied ?beyond reasonable doubt??the burden of proof at trial?that they had specifically intended to explode bombs on transatlantic flights. The jury?s diligence was such that Justice Calvert-Smith praised their conduct at the end of the trial. Excusing them from any further juror service for their lifetimes, he described them as a ?unique bunch of 12 people? and said they could ?Depart this court with the full-hearted thanks of the community for your service to it, which is far beyond the duty for most jurors, and my personal thanks.? A political conspiracy The Crown Prosecution Service?s announcement that it intends to seek a retrial of the seven demonstrates only contempt for due process. Having failed to secure the conviction it required, the CPS intends to keep going until it succeeds. On the face of it, this determination seems perverse. Why the concern with proving the specific charge of intention to explode transatlantic aircraft? After all, the three have been found guilty of conspiracy to murder, which carries a life sentence. Moreover, it is abundantly clear that the jury could not reasonably convict on the central charge. Within days of the initial raids and arrests, it was already apparent that there were gaping holes in the assertions by US and British authorities that they had stopped an imminent terror attack. Reports stated that no bombs had actually been assembled; that none of those detained had purchased airline tickets and some did not even have passports. In short, nothing presented during the trial proved that aircraft had been targeted. But an enormous political investment has been made in this case. As the World Socialist Web Site explained in ‘The politics of the latest terror scare’ the alleged plot was seized on not because of supposed security considerations but ?for transparently political purposes of a deeply reactionary character. It has, rather, to do with the machinations of the clique of political gangsters?Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, among others?who run the US government.? The context of the terror plot, the WSWS stated, was the ever-bloodier quagmire faced by the US-led occupation in both Iraq and Afghanistan and the politically explosive failure of the US-backed Israeli assault on Lebanon. With Bush?s approval ratings plummeting, Republicans feared a wipeout in the upcoming November elections. ?The answer of the Cheney-Rove conspirators is to engineer a new wave of panic and hysteria in an attempt to once again stampede voters behind Bush?s ?war on terrorism.? They did the same in 2004, when in the run-up to the election the government suddenly announced a plot to attack major financial institutions in New York, Washington and Newark, New Jersey?a plot that came to nothing.? This is now so clearly a matter of record that Simon Jenkins in the Guardian notes, ?It has been an open secret in police circles that Operation Overt, the most complex in counter-terror history, was sabotaged by the American vice president, Dick Cheney, desperate for a headline boost to the Republicans? 2006 mid-term elections.? He cites the recent book ?The Way of the World? by Ron Suskind, the Wall Street Journal?s former senior national affairs writer. This sets out how, after Prime Minister Tony Blair had informed Bush in July 2006 of the British intelligence services? two-year-long investigation, Operation Overt, into alleged Muslim extremists, ?Cheney then privately dispatched the CIA?s operations director, Jose Rodriguez, to Islamabad to secure the arrest of one of the British suspects, Rashid Rauf, believed to be a possible link with al-Qaida,? Jenkins writes. The capture of Rauf (who subsequently and inexplicably escaped detention) created panic in London, as ?the police had desperately to round up as many suspects as they could find overnight,? and ?all for the mid-term elections.? So rushed were the arrests that Blair had left for his Caribbean holiday just 48 hours before, and neither the head of the Metropolitan Police Special Operations department nor Britain?s transport secretary was aware that the raids were imminent until the last moment. That did not prevent the British government using the scare for its political objectives?in pressing for the extension of the period in which detainees could be held without charge for 90 days. As the WSWS stated, ?There undeniably is a conspiracy. It is a plot to use terrorist threats, real or imagined, to terrorise the American people, intimidate them, disorient them, and accustom them to accept the militarisation of every aspect of their lives and the destruction of their democratic rights. The centre of this conspiracy is the American government itself.? It is this political conspiracy that the British authorities are seeking to perpetuate in demanding a retrial.
Crime pays ? but for whom?UKWatch.net - 17 Sep 2008About 100 years ago, the great sociologist Emile Durkheim turned common sense on its head by claiming not only that crime is normal but that it is necessary for healthy societies to flourish. He argued that crime draws us ? the law abiding ? together, in horror, outrage and, thereby, in solidarity. This remarkable idea that crime has benefits for the innocent continues to intrigue academics (and bedevil undergraduates) today. Can it be possible that we need crime? Aside from whatever moral renewal it might trigger, there are other ways that societies are increasingly dependent on crime. In this article I focus on crime?s more prosaic beneficiaries. Which groups and individuals gain the most financially and politically from crime? The first part of the answer feels as wrong-headed as Durkheim?s revolutionary thesis: crime pays, but not for criminals. One reason for this is that the people most likely in Scotland (as elsewhere) to perpetrate crime are also most likely to be its victims. The economic benefit of knocking someone on the head and making off with their watch is offset by getting knocked on the head and stolen from. And though it is true that police make arrests in only a small proportion of crimes that take place in a given year, street crime is still not a very sustainable career choice. Adapting an adage, nearly all criminals get caught some of the time and some criminals get caught all of the time. It?s a high risk, low payout way of life. One American study found that the average take among those caught shoplifting amounted to the equivalent of 30 (Jack Hayes, Discount Store News, 1990). (Note that I am discussing specifically ?street? crime. For crimes of the powerful, or so-called white collar crime, line drawing gets difficult between harmful things the powerful do that are against the law and the harmful things they do that are legal. My focus here on the beneficiaries of street crime is directed by the fact that this tends to be what politicians and the media are referring to when they talk about a crime ?problem?.) So who are the beneficiaries of crime if not those doing it? The reasonably alert reader will already have in mind a few of these crime ?winners?, but it is one hope of this article to surprise even the cynical observer by pointing out some of the less obvious beneficiaries. Herewith, I present a list of the beneficiaries you probably already know about alongside a discussion of some of crime?s dark horses. The beneficiaries of crime that you already knew about 1. The crime companies. For the first time in the history of capitalism, the crime trade occupies its own sector of the legitimate economy. In business-speak this trade is referred to as ?security services?. These are the firms who would not exist but for crime, and possibly more significantly, the fear of crime. There are now more private than public police in the world, and by comparison to what you or I grew up with in the 1950s, ?60s or ?70s a seeming infinity of ways to protect our homes and monitor our children?s movements. Once Addiewell prison opens in January 2009 Scotland will soon have its second privately financed, constructed and managed prison. When Addiewell reaches its capacity of 700 prisoners, Scotland will have a higher percentage of its prison population in for-profit prisons than any other country in the world. 2. The secondary crime market ? insurance companies. Insurance is the business of risk, but where we are encouraged to reduce it, avoid it and fear it, these companies buy it, trade it and make money off of it. We invest in insurance because of a risk of crime, and we pay for premium rises when we make a claim on this service. The question is, do these costs reflect real changes in risk? Richard V. Ericson?s study of the global insurance industry in the aftermath of 9/11 showed that insurance companies ?thrive on conditions of extreme uncertainty? and can foster these conditions to their financial advantage. In other words, the more worried we are, the more we are willing to spend on the legal protection racket. 3. The media. Crime pays because crime sells. Well, some crimes sell better than others. Research on media representations of crime shows a consistent pattern: there is disproportionate coverage of violent and sex crimes in newspaper and television reporting. This is true for Scotland in particular as well as the UK in general. Let?s not blame it all on the press: we may need crime in ways that Durkheim could not have anticipated. Crime-based TV shows, films and books take up substantial amounts of our leisure time and spending (so good for you, reading this dry piece when you could be catching up on CSI). 4. Politicians. Being tough on crime has become the basis of contemporary political capital. A single horrific crime provides a leader the opportunity to convey desirable qualities and appear decisive and go-getting in a way that is not possible when trying to deal with structural problems in the economy or global threats beyond the control of any single nation. Building prisons, passing tougher sentencing laws and promising to put more police on the beat have arguably won governments votes and elections. Realising improvements in the health service, ensuring stable pensions, and providing adequate childcare for working parents are just as, if not more, complex problems than crime but provide fewer opportunities to demonstrate one?s political charisma, as Brown, compared with Blair, is learning to his cost. 5. The police and other criminal justice agencies. Former President Bill Clinton promised to add 100,000 more police in 1995, Jack Straw sought to recruit 4,000 new frontline officers in 2000, and the SNP promised 1,000 additional police on the street in 2007. When politicians use crime to build up political capital, then the police become beneficiaries of crime. They gain more funding, more staff and more priority in the never ending competition among public services for scarce resources. This benefit accrues to the police as an organisation, where the normative model of organisation is the efficiently run business. Businesses seek growth and market share, and the law and order politics of the last quarter-century has ensured that the police, and criminal justice services generally, have gained significant market share in the public sector market. But sometimes this ?success? has been to the consternation of the winners themselves. John Carnochan, director of Strathclyde Police?s Violence Reduction Unit has argued that we need additional health visitors more than we need extra police. Similarly, the Prison Officers Association has expressed opposition to plans for three new 2,500 bed prisons in England and Wales. Individuals who work in criminal justice agencies have learned that reducing crime does not necessarily follow from expanding crime control services. The beneficiaries of crime that you didn?t know about 1. FT 500 Companies. The Royal Bank of Scotland may have reported dismal results in the current economic climate, but is expected to do well out of its financing and half ownership of the Addiewell prison. Other companies on the FT 500 list with stakes in Scottish criminal justice include BT, Serco and Siemens. Siemens? They hold a lucrative contract to supply telephone services for prisoners, so lucrative that a complaint has been made to Ofcom by the Scottish Consumer Council (joining a ?super complaint? by counterparts in Wales and England) about excessive rates charged to prisoners using pay phones, alleged to be seven times more costly than rates charged for use of public phones. Academics have begun to talk about the ?crime control industry? and the ?prison-industrial complex?, and these conversations need to be located in the context of globalised, networked society. The business of crime is no longer limited to crime businesses, it has become one of myriad types of investment that allow multinational corporations to diversify their holdings and expand the territories of profit. 2. Surplus labour. Mark on a map the location of prisons constructed in the UK since the mid-1980s and a clear pattern emerges: they are almost all built on the grounds of old MoD installations, hospitals, and especially, defunct mining villages. Addiewell, Kilmarnock, and the planned Bishopbriggs prison follow this trend. West Lothian once sought to re-invent itself as part of Silicon Glen but has now got an Inland Revenue call centre in the Bathgate facility vacated by Motorola, and a prison to replace the jobs long lost by the oil shale industry. Public sector employment in Scotland has grown about twice as fast as private sector employment since the mid-1990s, and while it is difficult to extract the specific contribution of criminal justice workers to this result, it underlines a trend. The public sector, for better or worse, is providing the jobs ? as prison guards, probation officers or police ? that manufacturing and other industries no longer can. 3. Universities. Crime, or more precisely the study of it, provides two major forms of income to academia ? postgraduate fees and research funding. And this not only makes me grateful, since it is the reason that I have a job, but it makes universities increasingly interested in developing criminology programmes, degrees and centres. There are millions of pounds at stake just for Scottish Universities in the study of crime. This merits some self-reflection: are we profiting from misery? Are we supporting a criminal justice-industrial complex? I would not like to think so, and personally feel our contribution is worthwhile when our research exposes the hidden implications of this industry or allows for better understanding and therefore responses to the problems of crime and victimisation. However, research provides the evidence in political debates and by acting as the information producers in this field we cannot hold ourselves innocent nor above these legitimacy wars. When it comes to making money off of crime, the usual suspects are easy to spot, but the net spreads wider to include groups and institutions we think of as working for the common good. There are others that could be added to this discussion ? the voluntary sector organisations dependent on government contracts to provide services to those involved in the criminal justice system. Even the reform groups that seek to limit the growth and damage of criminal justice are beneficiaries to the extent that their funding relies on crime remaining in the public imagination. Speaking as one implicated in the crime business, I would argue that we have got a responsibility for our involvement to work for the good. But sometimes it is not entirely clear what doing good means. Dr Sarah Armstrong is a Senior Research Fellow with the Scottish Centre for Crime and Criminal Justice Research, and has recently received a research grant to study prison policy making.
