Sunday, July 22, 2012

Not even trying

Looking at the Human Rights Act and the way criminal (and criminal lawyers) have twisted the supposed meaning of the wording can drive you to despair at times. The actual blame lies with the (Labour) politicians who foisted this odious piece of loosely worded legislation upon us without setting up any safeguards to prevent criminals from using the infamous 'right to a family life' clause to remain in the UK often despite the fact they don't live or have contact with their families.
Two hundred and fifty foreign criminals who should have been deported at the end of their prison sentences were allowed to stay in Britain on human rights grounds last year without their claims being challenged in court.
In each case, the Home Office accepted their argument that deporting them would breach their human rights rather than asking a judge to decide. The number has increased fivefold in four years, throwing into doubt the commitment of Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to deporting foreign criminals.
They were allowed to stay despite Damian Green, the immigration minister, telling the Commons last December that the Government was "doing everything in our power to increase the number and speed of removals".
The figures, disclosed to The Telegraph under the Freedom of Information Act, show that there were 56 such cases in 2008, rising to 80 in 2009, 217 in 2010 and 250 in 2011 and that:
• In 2011, at least one terrorist – and possibly up to four – was allowed to stay, as well as up to eight killers and rapists. Also among the total were 20 robbers and up to eight paedophiles, plus as many as four people convicted of firearms offences.
• In 2010, the Home Office conceded in the cases of up to four murderers and up to four people convicted of manslaughter, as well as up to four rapists, up to eight paedophiles and 43 people convicted of violent crime or robbery.
• In 2009, there were 17 robbers and 10 violent criminals allowed to remain, and between one and four murderers.
• In 2008 up to four people convicted of manslaughter and up to four rapists were allowed to stay.
That's right, because they knew there was no way they'd win, they never even made the attempt and it's hard to blame them, after all the only losers would have been the taxpayers who have too foot the bill in such cases, including the legal aid these parasites (lawyers and criminals) claim when 'defending the rights of rapists, terrorists, murderers and thieves to remain amongst the good people of this land.
The thing is, even if we change the government, we still won't be able to get rid of the HRA because we're part of the EU too, the only way to do it is to vote for a party that will take us out of the EU and both the Labour and Tory parties who inevitably end up forming a government of the UK are hell bent on keeping us in. So unless people out there start voting for the minority parties who have as part of their policies a clause to get us out of the EU, this situation is not going to end any time soon
Abstaining from voting is not the answer either, that simply allows the main parties to get in by default and as we all know, they'll never bring in compulsory voting with a place on the voting card for 'None of the above' however much we'd like them too.
Still that shouldn't stop us trying to get our point across, however frustrating it is. Sooner or later the situation will get so bad that the government will be forced into action, the election of some of the minor parties at a general election may just tip their hands, though that will not as yet stop the EU. Still we can dream, can't we?

4 annotations:

Bill said...

Not taking part is all there is. You talk of the 'main parties' and yet what does one do when it's only the main parties candidates standing in any given election?

Give the vote top the least worst option, spoil the paper or not take part?

If voting ever changed anything in politics it would be abolished.

You need to grasp reality. This land is not and never has been at least for my entire lifetime run on as a democracy. It is a party autocracy given a veneer of democracy by 'the vote' which is run for the benefit of the socialist superstate along with the few who gain financially from its existence.
The quicker people realise this the quicker we will be rid of it.

Trundlemaster said...

Bill, I appreciate where you are coming from but 'not taking part' guarantees that the conventional statist parties win.

Much more effective could be not voting for the big three, even if not many MP's of the big three are unseated a swing to independents and smaller parties would be noticed and would worry the conventional parties.

If the party autocracy is to be broken then it needs to be done via the ballot box.

Bill said...

Don't you realise that not voting for the big three is not what its about?
The big three are not worried by the rise of an independent or a small party because they are all part of the same autocracy.

By 'taking part' you ensure the statist parties win. They don't particularly care which one wins as they all get their turn to tax the hell out of the population.
Who voted for the current government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland?
Not a living soul... so clearly there is much to be gained by voting!

There is no democracy. It's just an illusion.

James Higham said...

Absolutely. Out now.