By the Head of the Swedish prison service Nils Oberg. One key lesson learned (please pay attention cabinet ministers I know are reading) - remove the Prison Service from the hands of politicians and make it a stand alone part of the civil service.

Frank Pakenham (Lord Longford) had a major influence on our modern society - although he was often pilloried for taking on unpopular causes, like Myra Hindley.

An aristocrat, government minister, Knight of the Garter, member of the Labour party and author - he championed many issues, not least penal reform. And would not be put off by detractors who were less forward thinking. Usually for fear of castigation and ridicule.

In a time when it was certainly not expedient to do so, he was instrumental in bringing about the decriminalisation of homosexuality. Few others would take this issue on.

Its a great testament that this lecture is given in his honour - but sad that there are so few brave people left in British politics, who are prepared to argue for an unthinkable.

Many of which (unthinkable) ideas/views are now the accepted norm.

I was a massive fan of Longford - met him only once leaving my doctor's surgery, he was leaving his chiropodist in the same building. Chatted for ten minutes. He was already in his 90s. Told him he was brilliant; he was genuinely moved and almost in tears. He DID things; didn't just talk about them. Made prison visits at Christmas. Wonderful, Christian man illustrating the very best of that faith.

You just don't get 'characters' in politics like that any more...Enoch,Wedgie-Benn,even a certain member for Rochdale...!

The only character who has done well speaking his mind is Farage,love him or hate him he stood up against political orthodoxy...and won!

I did like The Honourable Lord,didn't always agree,but the press really did a good assassination attempt on him,sad because as ye said Mr King,an example I could do well copying in my Christian faith.

I cannot stress strongly enough how essential it is to give attention to this man.

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-vi...-like-criminals.html

My mother was less than impressed. She thought it wrong that a Peer should send his children to the local Primary school thus depriving (so she alleged) some poorer child of the opportunity.

I see that he was in favour of Clause 28. I once read it and thought it a deliberately ambiguously drafted and with its talk of 'pretended family relationships'. Now things have gone to the other extreme.

Opus, the first part of your post is clear; an elaboration on the second would be much appreciated - about this fine man.