That Was A Big Mistake

There was a lot riding on the Andrew Marr interview of Boris Johnson this morning. Three heavy-weight reputations on the line, those of Marr, Johnson and the BBC no less. Without doubt the unedifying spectacle was a car crash of epic proportions, admittedly not in slow motion as that of Prince Andrew's, but none-the-less destined to be the subject of expensive PR seminars for years to come.

Those who rose early this morning to catch it live were treated to the moment that the Tory Party effectively lost control of the PR narrative by dint of a gamble that 'weaponising' the deaths of innocent victims on Friday would some how play well with the public. This, despite the measured and dignified earlier interview with Shami Chakrabarti and public plea by Jack Merritt's father:-

David Merritt posted on Twitter: "My son, Jack, who was killed in this attack, would not wish his death to be used as the pretext for more draconian sentences or for detaining people unnecessarily. "R.I.P. Jack: you were a beautiful spirit who always took the side of the underdog."

He added: "Jack lived his beliefs. He held me to a high standard; he would have expected me to say this, and would have pulled me up had I not! "He was an exceptional young man, and I'm only finding out the half of it now he's gone."

By our prime minister disgracefully engineering a slanging-match on the Andrew Marr show this morning he has not only embarrassed us all, but in the process demonstrated why he is not fit to hold office. I'm sure much to the bewilderment and disbelief of Conservative Central Office he has also single-handedly knocked his 'oven-ready' Brexit off the agenda, along with his NHS lies. This could be a turning-point in the election campaign and having chosen to go down this sordid path, it's going to be very difficult indeed for the Tory spin machine to change course. This from today's Observer:-

The Observer view on the London Bridge attack: no place for populist posturing

Terrorists seek to undermine our democratic norms and liberal values by sowing fear and hatred. The horrific scenes from London Bridge on Friday were a chilling echo of the attack that happened there two years ago. This time, two people lost their lives, a number that could have been higher were it not for the heroism of members of the public who pursued the attacker and seized his knife. The swift and brave action from the police and security services was also crucial.

In the immediate aftermath of such an attack, attention inevitably turns to how it could have been avoided. The danger of this debate happening during a general election campaign is that, rather than being open to cool-headed, evidence-based analysis, politicians seek to advance solutions that will achieve electoral advantage.

There is no other way to read the prime minister’s response to this attack. His calls to “end the automatic early release system” and “break with the failed system of the past” represent a rank politicisation of these tragic events, to imply that the main deficiency in the way we manage the risk posed by convicted terrorists is lax sentencing. Priti Patel, the home secretary, tweeted yesterday that the last Labour government introduced legislation that meant “dangerous terrorists” had to be released at the halfway point of their sentence. This is not true. The courts have long had the power to give terrorists sentences that prevent automatic early release. Usman Khan, Friday’s attacker, was convicted of terrorist offences in 2012, and was initially given an indeterminate prison sentence (an “IPP”), introduced by the Labour government in 2005, which would have meant he could not be released until deemed safe by the parole board. That was converted by the court of appeal into an extended term, which meant he was released after serving half of a 16-year custodial sentence.

That sentencing regime no longer exists. David Cameron’s government scrapped IPPs in 2012, when it became clear that people convicted of relatively minor offences were being left languishing in prison indefinitely because they could not prove they were no longer a risk. At the same time, extended sentences were beefed up. Today, someone convicted of a terrorism offence will either receive a life sentence, under which they will remain in prison indefinitely until they convince the parole board they no longer present a risk to the public; or an extended determinate sentence, in which they must either serve their full sentence or prove to the parole board they no longer present a risk after serving two-thirds of their sentence; or be deemed an “offender of particular concern”, which means they must either serve their whole custodial sentence or satisfy the parole board they are not a risk to the public at or after its halfway point. There is no such thing as “automatic early release” for prisoners convicted of terrorism-related offences, and it is disingenuous and irresponsible for Boris Johnson to imply otherwise.

Today’s terror attacks are more likely to be carried out by lone actors using low-grade weapons, inspired by, but not connected to, organised extremism, making them more difficult for our security services to predict. This places more burden than ever on community policing and the prison and probation services to manage the risks of terrorist attack. As a society, we can choose to lock up anyone with any proven terrorist connections forever, regardless of whether or not they have committed a serious crime, and throw away the key – and with it the civil liberties we hold dear. Or we can try to manage the risks in a way that is compatible with liberal democracy.

Johnson’s cynical focus on sentencing reform is surely a ploy to deflect from the sweeping cuts and botched reforms that have hampered the ability of the police force, and the prison and probation services, to manage the risks of terrorism. The prisons budget has been cut sharply since 2010, and the number of prison officers fell by a quarter between 2010 and 2015, leaving an inexperienced and demoralised prison service. Overcrowding has reached intolerably dangerous and unsafe levels, reflected in rising rates of deaths, violence and self-harm on the prison estate, and rehabilitation services are desperately underfunded. This is the context in which our prisons are expected to support the deradicalisation of extremist prisoners; but Whitehall security chiefs have been warning since 2011 that too few convicted terrorists were exposed to deradicalisation efforts. Far from being places where extremist ideology can be tackled head-on, our prisons have become incubators of extremism, and that is partly because of a lack of funding and care by the government.

Khan was released on licence and could have been returned to prison at any time had the probation service flagged him as a risk. This attack will inevitably raise questions about why this did not happen. But the context is a probation service reduced by cuts and, in the words of its chief inspector, an “irredeemably flawed” privatisation by Chris Grayling in 2014. It is struggling with a lack of resources and severe staff shortfalls, and the government has placed too much emphasis on electronic tagging as a way of managing risk – despite the fact there is little evidence that it reduces reoffending.

Any politician who implies that there is a simple way to eliminate the risk of terrorism should be treated with the contempt they deserve. The risk cannot be eradicated, only managed. But that is more easily done when we choose as a society to properly resource community policing, prisons and probation, and invest in developing evidence-based approaches to prevention and deradicalisation. The tragedy of Friday’s attack is only made sharper by the fact that it was launched at a conference that was about precisely that, in a room full of people who have devoted their life’s work to making us all safer. Who wins if our leaders take a reductive, populist approach to preventing such hateful attacks from happening again? Terrorists like Usman Khan.