It's not looking good for Duane Buck

In the wake of Troy Davis' execution, it's business as usual in Texas. And things are not looking good for Duane Buck. On the surface, the press coverage of the suspension of his execution in Texas for the 1995 murder of his ex-girlfriend and her lover sounds promising – the US Supreme Court in Washington has agreed to hear his case for a new sentencing hearing.

During the original hearing, psychiatrist Walter Quijano said black people are more likely to re-offend than whites. In Texas, after a person has been convicted, the jury is asked two questions: are there mitigating circumstances as to why this person may have committed this crime, and secondly, and most importantly in this case, is this person a future danger. Saying he’s a future danger because he is black is unconstitutional – the law says race should in no way influence the judicial system.

But what’s really not good is that of the five other cases where this particular psych used the racial argument, all five were granted a new sentencing hearing – and all five were sentenced to death again. It seems no one doubts Buck’s guilt, and so the only alternative outcome is life without parole. Better to do life in Huntsville than fester until the needle at Polunsky? Certainly, most would say. Certainly good to get a sentencing hearing that is itself fair under the constitution.

It’s also worth pointing out that the current senator of Texas, Rick Perry, refused to grant Buck a new hearing – it took the granting of a certiorari petition to the Supreme Court to get this one looked at, and they could quite easily refuse a re-sentencing and clear the way for another execution date. But if Rick Perry can sit back and allow what appears to be blatant racism prejudice a trial, what is he going to gloss over in the White House? We’ve lived through one cowboy's time on Pennsylvania Avenue. Maybe the publicity surrounding this case might throw some light on what we can expect from another.

Don't worry there's still one prince left

Ok. I've managed to hold this off so far, but I think it's about time to reveal the sheer quality of my Royal Wedding mug.

I managed to persuade myself that as I don't knit, there's no point in having the 'knit your own Royal Family', but as you can see, the mug was beyond my powers of resistance.

Finally, I'm not the only older sibling to be outdone by a ginger younger brother.

Celyn Vincent's case makes no sense, morally or economically.

Whether the family of Celyn Vincent are suffering because of Tory cuts, or whether the possibility of her being put into care is due to the already-established system in the UK, surely the case of the Vincent family should make the current government think twice about cutting care for the disabled.

Celyn's mother Riven, who was visited by David Cameron before the election, says she can no longer cope with the round-the-clock care that her daughter needs. Gloucestershire Council are alleged to have refused any more help - the family currently gets six hours a week - and with the lack of ringfencing around funds supposedly meant for improving respite provision for kids with disabilities and their families, councils may well dip into the pot for other things.

David Cameron had a disabled child. He knows what it's like, or at least that's what you'd think. News reports say he's going to write to Riven Vincent personally. That's great. But as Riven Vincent says herself, what about the other thousands of families who are in exactly the same position?

I'm no economist, and I can only hope that the government knows something I don't. Could someone explain to me how families being forced to put their kids into respite care, full time, costs less than the authorities providing support for a child to live at home, with people who love them and friends and family who can help with looking after them? Surely creating a situation where institutionalisation is the only option is the exact opposite of the 'Big Society' idea that the Tories seem to be so proud of?