Save only that you get it wrong

I tend to like Ukip candidates, because they aren't 'career' politicians they tend to speak their mind often to the horror of the political class and their chums in the libtard led media.
Mail.

To mark the fiftieth anniversary of the last execution in Britain today a newly-elected UKIP MEP has called for its reintroduction.
Louise Bours, who represents North West England in the European Parliament, said there was no ‘ethical reason’ to keep child killers and police murderers alive.
The remarks, which come as anti-death penalty activists welcomed today’s milestone, are likely to spark controversy.

Controversy amongst the political chattering classes perhaps, though I rather suspect that amongst ordinary people  not so much as they tend to see things away from the shade of the intelligentsia that believe in their divine right to tell us how to live our lives down to the smallest detail.
Personally my only objection to the death penalty is that if you do make a mistake it's impossible to put it right and I have no trust in the police or the CPS to make sure that in certain cases the evidence is properly collated and gone through. Sure the likes of Ian Huntley and the 7/7 bombers as well as the killers of Lee Rigby won't be missed, but we all know about miscarriages of justice too and the propensity of the state and their minions to throw their weight around as well as throwing the odd victim to the wolves.
Still, no doubt the idea will be quite popular amongst the real people of the UK, donations to Ukip are now bigger than those going to the Lib Dems after all. But over all, unless Ukip can deal with corruption and incompetence within the legal and policing systems, it's not something I propose they do immediately.
Should be worth a good few votes though.

Open prisons

There are four categories of prisons for men in the UK, A being the most secure and only Bristol on the UK mainland is (or was) categorised as such. Other prisons did have category A wings or blocks too. "B was where most violent prisoners ended up, C was essentially a massive holding type of prison where the vast majority of offenders end up and D is the open prison system where prisoners nearing release are kept along with those deemed no danger to society. Or at least that was the theory...
Telegraph.

Four prisoners a week are walking out of the country’s jails, a rise of 10 per cent, according to new figures.
The National Offender Management Service disclosed that the number of prisoners absconding in England and Wales rose to 225 in the year to March, from 204 in 2012/13.
The figures were published on the same day that it emerged that an armed robber Wayne Whitley who was serving a life sentence, had absconded from Kirkham open prison in Lancashire.
Absconding is defined as when a prisoner “absents him or her self from prison custody without lawful authority” and without clearing a wall or breaking any locks.
Most of the abscondees were from male open prisons where security is notoriously lax. The figures come after there has been growing controversy about the number of prisoners going missing from open prisons.

Unfortunately due to a rise in offenders and the governments (of both stripes) reluctance to build more secure prisons, many prisoners are ending up in categories that were never designed or ran to hold them. Hence we have armed robbers ending up in Category D rather than B or C.
Having worked on the Isle of Sheppey where there are three prisons of B, C, and D it's very noticeable that Stamford Hill the category D prison is totally different to the other two, if only because it doesn't have a wall around it and those it holds are dropped off at the gatehouse and actually walk up to the two main buildings housing the inmates. No pressure and a lot of trust... but as most are only there short term, they probably do not want to mess things up at that stage, so it's a calculated risk in a sense, but pretty good odds.
However add someone in there who is dangerous, has nothing to lose, has quite a bit of time left on their sentence then it's a recipe for abscondment.
Open prisons are a good idea, just not for violent lifers, if they were used the way they were meant to be then there would I suspect be few incidents of escape.
As it is, politicians whilst having no problems spending a fortune on themselves and celebrity causes such as minorities and 'green idiocy' are far more reluctant to actually build prisons and needed infrastructure.
They really don't have a normal set of priorities once they go to Westminster...

This is another reason we hold the system in contempt

Legal aid, it's supposed to assist those who can't afford it access to the legal system for redress if they think they have been cheated or to provide a defence for them if they have been accused of a crime. All in all a pretty good idea, though like most things involving lawyers expensive and used for things the original writers of it never envisaged.
Mail.

An Ethiopian farmer has won permission to use taxpayers’ money to sue the British Government ... for sending aid to his homeland.
The case, branded ridiculous by MPs, will be funded entirely by the public even though the farmer has never set foot in this country.
The 33-year-old Ethiopian – granted anonymity to protect his family – says ministers are funding a one-party state in his country that has breached his human rights. He says foreign aid helped the regime inflict ‘brutal treatment’ on thousands of farmers driven from their land, against the International Development Act 2002.
Taxpayers will pay for both the farmer’s lawyers and a defence team from the Department for International Development, in a case that could cost tens of thousands of pounds. This is in addition to the £1.3billion Britain has sent to Ethiopia since 2010.

In fairness to the government the guy got his case in before they changed the rules, yet even so you have to wonder other than greed what the hell the legal profession were thinking even allowing such a case.
It does throw up two issues though, the legal profession throwing away our cash on frivolous cases and the government throwing away our cash on foreign kleptocracies who basically use it to line their own pockets as very little seems to manage to get down to helping ordinary people.
Essentially we don't need to be spending taxpayers cash on things that are of no benefit to taxpayers. If people want to assist the downtrodden of the Earth that's their choice and should be done via real charities, not the government deciding which foreign potentates pension fund they are lining. Nor should legal aid be for anyone other than UK citizens, not EU citizens and definitely not foreigners who have never set foot here. Granted a barrister or solicitor should be available as court appointed should you need a defence, but only if you're here in person other than that, no. Nor was the no win, no fee idea such a great one either, it's just hiked up insurance premiums across the UK and made organisations risk averse.
As to what we should do? I don't know, but there's a reason a lot of revolutions begin with a massive cull of lawyers...

Storm in a (Daily Mail) teacup

Certain news papers have certain agendas which come out obviously when you read them, they're either populist or in other cases designed to get the readerships blood boiling. The Daily Mail has a reputation of winding its readers up with stories about immigrants, criminals cocking a snook at the law, the dangers to children from porn etc. They're good at it too, but relentlessly authoritarian as the response is usually to ban or demand ever more laws.
Mail.

Thieves, burglars and violent thugs will be free to work in schools, hospitals and care homes after a ruling by judges.
The Supreme Court said thousands of criminals should be allowed to wipe their record clean so they are not haunted forever by past offences.
The change means people will not be forced to disclose some convictions to prospective employers – because this breaches their human rights. Those affected by the ruling include people applying for certain kinds of jobs involving work with children or vulnerable adults.
Up to now, anyone wanting to work in these areas has had to disclose any previous convictions or cautions, which stayed on their records indefinitely. But a panel of five Supreme Court judges yesterday upheld a Court of Appeal judgement that blanket checks could breach a person’s right to a private or family life.
The Home Office challenged that judgement, saying it compromised the protection of children and vulnerable groups, but in the meantime introduced a system to filter out single minor convictions or cautions during an enhanced criminal records check.

Actually I'm with the Supreme Court on this one, caught nicking a bicycle age 11 shouldn't mean that you be denied a job working in a care home at age 25. Under the old rehabilitation of Offenders act, any crime which got you a prison sentence of less than ten years did not have to be declared after ten years had passed. It was presumed if you could stay out of trouble over ten years, you'd reformed. CRB checks, particularly the enhanced ones more or less told your past criminal history back to the year of your birth. Sure it kept the dangerous ones away from the vulnerable, though it couldn't prevent one off's or check on those who did a crime after being offered the job.
Some crimes are of course going to remain on the checks, the sex offenders register is not covered by this ruling. Crimes of violence in certain categories will also mean you remain on the register after ten years. Expunging a caution because of drunken folly after five years however will.
It means those who have reformed their lives after perhaps a stupid mistake will now be able to find work in expanded areas. Hopefully the ruling will still keep the dangerous ones out.
But lurid headlines sell papers and the Mail is convinced paedogeddon is on its way because a guy who stole a bicycle when 11 in 2002 is going to have his criminal record expunged.
The blanket CRB check one size fits all was never a good idea. Giving people a chance after time has passed is.

Other way round

Seems the islamoscum who decided that ordinary patriots attending an EDL rally were fair game for a bomb have tasked their lawyers into appealing the sentences because they were too harsh and non-muslims would have got less.
BBC.

Six men jailed for planning to bomb an English Defence League rally are challenging their jail terms, saying they were treated more harshly than non-Muslim extremists.
The West Midlands men were jailed for between 18 and 20 years for plans related to the June 2012 rally, in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire.
The men are Omar Khan, Jewel Uddin, Zohaib Ahmed, Mohammed Hasseen, Anzal Hussain and Mohammed Saud
They were sentenced in June last year.

Lawyers and leftards tend to think this way too, though in the case of the lawyers it's the legal aid money they'll get that's the driving factor, not the perceived injustice. Yet from my admittedly biased point of view the problem is that the cases they brought up as examples should have got more jail time, not they get comparable ones. These men are simply dangerous and should have been put down like dogs, it's not like those they opposed were planning to bomb mosques now were they?
Whilst I believe that people should be free to appeal once, after that it really should only be if new evidence is introduced, so I have no problem with these guys appealing, I do object to the 'but he got away with it' style objection they have come up with, pointing out that a Nazi bomber got less of a sentence than they did is not grounds for appeal in my eyes. Nor do their claims of dissimilar harsher treatment for muslims hold much ground, this blog and others are full of examples where muslims have received far lighter treatment and lesser charges for some violent and outrageous behaviour.
No doubt they'll be hoping for a pardon and a compo claim if they win, wouldn't be surprised if some out there believe they deserve it...

And they wonder why people have contempt for the law...

Respect for the law is at an all time low in the UK simply because judges don't do their jobs by offering soft sentences. Such things as political correctness and a desire to not appear 'racist' also means that to many of the indigenous population, there appears to be a two tier system in operation, where the colour of your skin or your chosen religion might jut mean your sentence is far lighter than one that would be received by 'ol whitey'.
Still, this one came as a bit of a surprise...
Express.

A MOTORIST jailed after a high-speed police chase has escaped losing his licence for ever despite already being banned 39 times.
Andrew Bage, 46, had an “appalling” 211 convictions including 39 for driving while disqualified and without insurance.
Recorder Graeme Cook told him: “This is one of the most serious cases of dangerous driving I have ever come across. There is no remorse and your record is appalling.”
He jailed the landscape gardener for 15 months and disqualified him for four years. But he chose not to use his discretionary power and take away his licence for good.

Clearly this guy is an utter loon, a car or other road vehicle driven without due care and attention is a lethal weapon and driving whilst drunk makes it even worse. This is one of the cases where if the guy shows no remorse then the sentence needs to be open ended until the authorities are pretty damned certain he won't be a danger to the public again.
Now whilst I have my doubts about speed restrictions, speed cameras, as well as the amount of alcohol in your system being dangerous, clearly this guy is not safe to be allowed in a vehicle, hell he doesn't appear to be safe to be allowed out of the house at times.

Before Bage was led to the cells, the judge also ordered him to pay a £100 victim surcharge and said the money must be paid within 18 months. But Bage defiantly replied: “Not by me!”

Sounds about right, we're going to pay it out of his benefits.
Somehow I suspect once he's released he'll be caught again, I doubt revoking his license permanently would work, this guy probably needs taking out and shot as a waste of space.

Arrested for quoting Churchill

Truly the UK is doomed if you can be arrested for quoting Winston Churchill. You'd think it almost impossible, however you'd be wrong, it can and has happened to Paul Weston the Liberty GB candidate for the South-East in the EU elections...
Liberty GB

Today Paul Weston, chairman of the party Liberty GB and candidate in the 22 May European Elections in the South East, has been arrested in Winchester.
At around 2pm Mr Weston was standing on the steps of Winchester Guildhall, addressing the passers-by in the street with a megaphone. He quoted the following excerpt about Islam from the book The River War by Winston Churchill:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."
Reportedly a woman came out of the Guildhall and asked Mr Weston if he had the authorisation to make this speech. When he answered that he didn’t, she told him "It's disgusting!" and then called the police.
Six or seven officers arrived. They talked with the people standing nearby, asking questions about what had happened. The police had a long discussion with Mr Weston, lasting about 40 minutes.
At about 3pm he was arrested. They searched him, put him in a police van and took him away.

Now granted Churchill's message would be granted as beyond the pale in today's climate of political correctness, particularly by the likes of the political classes who have sought to emasculate the indigenous populations right to have opinions they deem subversive and frankly there's few more subversive than Churchill who was decidedly anti-establishment until they discovered they needed him after the establishment totally misjudged Hitler.
That said, giving a direct quote of Winston Churchill and finding yourself under arrest is likely to cause those who arrested you and complained about you to strongly backfire in their faces as I simply cannot see any judge or magistrate wanting to touch this one with a bargepole. Nor would I expect if it did go further any jury save one stuffed with muslims to convict.
Liberty GB are of course the same party whose member Tim Burton was arrested (and then found not guilty) of offending the Tell Mama organisations leader when he called him a ‘mendacious grievance-mongering Taqiyya artist’ and who do appear to be able to upset the authorities and get away with it simply by keeping to just this side of the law unlike some muslim preachers and demonstrators who hold sign up to behead anyone disrespecting islam and get away with it.
Still, it remains to be seen if charges will be brought, as it is if they aren't then the police have broken up a lawful and legitimate political gathering on the say so of someone who was offended by a Churchill quote. If charges are brought, it appears that quoting a great wartime leader of the UK is no longer legal in the eyes of the authorities or powers that be.
Freedom of speech? When it comes to quoting Churchill, apparently not...

Convenient

How I am coming to loathe the Human Rights Act, it seems to contain a get out clause for any criminal looking to be deported and a license to make money for the legal establishment. Two cases caught my attention this morning, Haroon Aswat can't be deported to the USA on charges of setting up a terrorist training camp because he has paranoid schizophrenia and the court want to ensure he will be sent to a psychiatric facility, not a prison, paranoid schizophrenic being the default position for most jihadi's these days. And then there was this...
Mail.

An illegal immigrant who stabbed a 15-year-old schoolboy to death less than a year after arriving in Britain cannot be deported because he claims to be gay, judges ruled yesterday.
The 29-year-old Jamaican was jailed for life aged 16 when he and another schoolboy knifed Abdul Maye to death over a £10 debt outside his school in east London.
A judge at the Old Bailey ordered that he be kicked out of Britain once he had served a minimum of eight years.
Judge Paul Focke told the thug, who cannot not be named for legal reasons: ‘You are a Jamaican national and within months of coming to this country you committed murder.
‘I am of the view that your continued presence in this country will be detrimental to its citizens.’
But yesterday, the Court of Appeal ruled that he could not be sent back to Jamaica because he could face degrading treatment for being homosexual that would breach his human rights.
In an extraordinary judgement which has provoked outrage, Lord Justice Kay said he believed his mother’s evidence that he was gay – even though the Home Office said he ‘had made no mention of it’ until his first appeal against deportation failed.

 Well wasn't that bloody convenient, he hid the fact that he was gay until he was about to be deported and was only believed because his mum said so
What a joke the Human Rights Act is, it's supposed to protect our rights and yet all it seems to do is allow murderers, rapists and thieves to remain amongst us often illegally and most definitely unwelcome by the population as a whole.
Frankly I don't care what the Jamaicans do to him if he's returned, I have a sneaking suspicion that if he managed to hide the fact that he's gay this long, he would manage OK in Jamaica. If not, who cares? (well his mum obviously)
The HRA ought to be renamed the Criminal Rights Charter as all it seems to do is allow those who we don't want to remain amongst us posing a threat to the individuals of this country and the vast mass of law abiding people here.
The only way to rid ourselves of it would be to leave the EU, what's not to like?

Another reason to end foreign aid

And legal aid for non UK people too...
Apparently an Ethiopian farmer is using legal aid to sue the British government for giving foreign aid to the Ethiopian government because as with many African governments they are a bunch of thieving despots and have forced him to give his crops and land to them...
Mail.

An Ethiopian farmer has been given legal aid in the UK to sue Britain – because he claims millions of pounds sent by the UK to his country is supporting a brutal regime that has ruined his life.
He says UK taxpayers’ money – £1.3 billion over the five years of the coalition Government – is funding a despotic one-party state in his country that is forcing thousands of villagers such as him from their land using murder, torture and rape.
The landmark case is highly embarrassing for the Government, which has poured vast amounts of extra cash into foreign aid despite belt-tightening austerity measures at home.
Prime Minister David Cameron claims the donations are a mark of Britain’s compassion.
But the farmer – whose case is set to cost tens of thousands of pounds – argues that huge sums handed to Ethiopia are breaching the Department for International Development’s (DFID) own human rights rules.
He accuses the Government of devastating the lives of some of the world’s poorest people rather than fulfilling promises to help them. The case comes amid growing global concern over Western aid propping up corrupt and repressive regimes.

And that pretty much sums up foreign aid as both the UK public see it (mostly) and the idiot compassion bit that the political classes use to salve their conscience and big themselves up in the press. We should not be giving a penny to foreign governments, unless it's a bribe to buy our stuff, we should at least be honest about it. If we are to give aid, it should be done directly for those we are aiding and cut out the thieving kleptocratic governments en route. Mostly though I believe that whilst we have problems here, we should not be trying to sort out problems there...
As for getting legal aid, sorry, no, he's not a UK citizen and should not be given the cash to do so, if a lawyer wants to take on the case pro bono, fine, but you do not get our cash to sue us.
This is the system that the undisciplined leftards and libtards have saddled us with, full of faux compassion for anyone who wishes enrich themselves at the taxpayers expense and absolute hell for an ordinary person to fathom or deal with. This is why they need to be brought down and denied access to the levers of power. Common sense has left the UK and all we have are idiots like Cameron with their compassion and a system that gives cash to those who don't work here nor have paid into the system.
Some days you just despair.

Gosh, that's surprising... not

Getting tough is apparently not the same for the government as it is for the rest of us, in fact getting tough appears to be simply a matter of words then back to normal. Mind you, when it comes to deporting foreign criminals, their hands are tied, if only because they lack the guts necessary to remove the Human Rights Act.
Mail.

Almost 4,200 foreign rapists, killers and other criminals who should have been kicked out of the UK are walking the streets after a surge in failed deportation cases.
The number of overseas convicts who are being released from jail without being deported has soared by a fifth in the past year, despite a series of promises by ministers.
More than 30 are walking out of jail and into the community every week.

Yep, they talk the talk but can't walk the walk as the lawyers will hold up any deportation for years if necessary and no doubt will even demand that a child molester ought to have his right to a family life, despite his family often enough being the ones that turned them in.
Yes the legal system only applies the laws, but often enough stretches them beyond recognition at times with precedent. Yet mostly that is down to badly written law and there's no doubt in my mind that the HRA is an unnecessary badly written law.
A society run by ordinary people wouldn't tolerate any foreigner who had committed a crime that led to imprisonment being allowed to remain afterwards, they'd be out before they'd even had a chance to place a foot outside prison.
But sadly the political classes are not ordinary people and rarely if ever come into contact with these scum.
Until we rid ourselves of the political classes, we won't get a decent society, it really has become that simple.

Sick

The Human Rights Act, one of the most odious pieces of legislation foisted upon us by the previous Labour government and naturally supported to the hilt by the Lib Dems as it's necessary to have it and remain in the EU. No one in a civilised society believes criminals should have no rights, but the HRA gives them exactly the same rights as a none criminal and this is where the trouble starts...
Express.

A SUDANESE rapist who preyed on girls as young as 13 is suing Justice Secretary Chris Grayling over “frustration and anxiety” caused by a delay to his parole hearing.
Adil Aboulkadir, 38, was jailed for a minimum of four years for his part in the abuse of three vulnerable girls.
He was said to have led a gang of five Darfur refugees who groomed victims aged 14 and 13 in Dartford, Kent.
Aboulkadir had already launched a series of taxpayer-funded ­legal actions which could cost Britain more than £250,000 and block moves to deport him for years.
Now he wants damages, saying his human rights were violated because he had to wait seven months for a court date to argue for his freedom.
Taxpayers paid £125,000 for a legally-aided lawyer and ­interpreter during the gang’s trial at Maidstone Crown Court in 2008. Aboulkadir was convicted of rape and sexual ­activity with a child. But he convinced the High Court that his rights were “arguably” violated by a failure to consider release immediately his minimum jail term ended.
He was freed 16 months ­after the four-year tariff expired. Since 2013 he has been in an immigration centre, fighting a bid to deport him.

I actually feel rather sick at having this monster in the same county as me...
Any sane system would have had him deported the second he left prison, any decent system would have had the child rapist take a bullet in the back of the head the moment he was found guilty of his rape jihad. But no, our system gives the monster a chance at milking the taxpayer because the system hurt his feelings by taking too long.
This man should never have been allowed into the UK, he should not have been allowed to remain, but the lunacy that is the HRA which the government won't remove so in love with the EU that it is gives this scum the chance to stay here and possibly be a risk to other children.
This is socialism in action, this is why the left should be regarded in the same light as Nazis, simply unable to be trusted with what's decent and right.
This guy needs hanging, as do his whole legal team and all the politicians who voted for and desire to keep the HRA on the statute books...

Unlawful? So change the law... oh you can't it's an EU law...

No surprises when the Tory rebels failed to add an amendment to the effects of the Human Rights Act on UK law, still it was interesting that so many came out of the woodwork and embarrassed the Prime Minister who said such an amendment was unlawful.The amendment called for the clause 'the right to a family life' to be illegal for judges to use as an excuse for foreign criminals including child molesters, rapists and murderers to remain in the UK despite being convicted of such heinous crimes.
Telegraph.

David Cameron’s authority has been called into question after he was forced to rely on Labour and the Liberal Democrats to block a Conservative backbench move to toughen human rights laws.
More than 90 Conservative MPs voted for an amendment intended to make it harder for foreign criminals to avoid deportation – even though Mr Cameron had said the plan was unlawful.
The amendment also split the Coalition, as Conservative ministers sat on their hands but Lib Dem ministers voted against it.
Mr Cameron was forced into his awkward abstention by the defiance of Conservative backbenchers over the Immigration Bill.
MPs wanted to use the bill to curb judges’ ability to block deportation because of a foreign offender’s family connections in the UK.
The “right to a family life” is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. Many Tories want to restrict the convention’s influence in British public life.
Almost 100 Conservative MPs had backed an amendment to the Bill tabled by Dominic Raab, a Tory backbencher, which would prevent most foreign criminals invoking family life to resist deportation.
The Government had refused to support the amendment, saying that official legal advice suggests it was unworkable and could be challenged in the courts.

In one sense Cameron is right, the way the HRA pervades current law would mean such an amendment could be challenged as illegal, but that presupposes the primacy of European law over UK law via the European Court of Human Rights. As our legal system is undermined by this court, the best way around it is to change the law which gives criminals access to it which of course means scrapping the HRA and withdrawing form the EU.
Anyone here think Cameron, Clegg or Milliband will go for that?
Essentially it means that foreign criminals have the right to stay here if they can show a family connection and only a leftard or Lib Dem would see that as common sense, the rest of us see it as madness and believe that if the family are so enamoured of scum then they can bloody well join them if they are deported should they so wish.
The HRA is too complex and covers too much in the way of frivolity, it should have stuck to basics such as no incarceration without trial, right to a fair trial, protection from torture to gain a confession. The right to a family life is no right at all, it's just wishful thinking on the part of namby pamby libtards and has been twisted beyond common sense to allow scum to remain in the UK against the wishes of its people.
This is why a vote for the big three political parties is a wasted vote, they have no intentions of taking us out of the EU or scrapping the HRA, it's just words to get votes.
A vote for Con/Lab/Lib is a vote to maintain the current system, frankly they don't deserve them.

Typical

It's amazing what the legal profession getup too in their never ceasing quest to grab cash off the taxpayer. Take the case of Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, the guy who was under a terrorist watch system and then absconded from a mosque wearing a burka. Now I'm pretty sure the police want a word with him and would like to know his whereabouts.
It does appear though that his lawyers know where the terror suspect is, as he's instructed them to appeal the order which requires that his whereabouts are known...
Express.

BRITAIN’S £1billion legal aid gravy train was branded “absurd” yesterday after it emerged tax­payers are funding an appeal by a terror suspect while on the run.
Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, 27 – who is feared to have had terrorist training – wore a burka to flee a mosque and evade control orders last November.
He has been missing ever since but was still granted legal aid.
Now his lawyers are asking Appeal Court judges in London to quash High Court orders aimed at protecting the public.
The October 2012 High Court rulings upheld a decision by the Home Secretary to restrict Mohamed’s movements.
Legal aid costs taxpayers more than £1billion a year, with some barristers raking in more than £500,000 from such fees.

Kind of unbelievable that a guy who is a fugitive and technically on the run from the law still has access to legal aid. I could kind of understand it if he was appealing it whilst living under the conditions, but he isn't and if anything rather proves that he must have something to hide by going on the run.
Personally I'm of the opinion that anyone who goes abroad to get terrorist training ought not to be allowed back in the UK, however that's common sense talking, the legal system is far more absurd than that and common sense approaches need not apply. Though it appears anything unlike a common sense approach will qualify for legal aid.
Now I don't know if Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed is a danger to us, I rather suspect he is, but I've no proof, what I do know is that if he's on the run then legal aid should not apply... not now, not ever.
If he hands himself back in and goes back under the restrictions fine, we'll look at that, but no aid until he does.
Sadly it appears that's not going to happen...

Rights and wrongs

I have often railed against human rights abuses when known criminals have used various clauses to remain in the UK, the most common being the right to a family life, which has even been used by a serial child abuser to remain, such are the soft touches that make up our senior judges today. I'm also aware that there are some out there who have committed no crimes yet are watched as the security forces know that they are a risk to the general public.
Mail.

An Al Qaeda-trained bomb-maker was last night free to walk Britain’s streets under a cloak of state-sanctioned anonymity.
The fanatic is one of seven men released from Government anti-terror control orders this month under rules meant to protect their human rights.
He undertook terror training in Pakistan and was named as an alleged terrorist by an American supergrass whose evidence helped to foil a massive UK bomb plot. The 41-year-old was part of a London group of Islamist extremists that included one of those who plotted to blow up the Ministry of Sound nightclub and Bluewater shopping centre in 2004.

Am I happy about this guy walking amongst us? No, I would have thought such a creature would have been banned from living here, however I'm not the one who makes up the rules.
That said, he does have a right to anonymity, if only because he hasn't actually committed a crime here and much as I'm loath to admit it in his case, it's a right I believe any decent society ought to have.
If however he does go on to commit some form of atrocity here, I will be amongst the first to be wondering why he was allowed to wander around unmonitored. But so far other than allegations, he hasn't been convicted of anything.
This probably need regulations for monitoring suspects with far more teeth than the T-PIMS but that is by the bye, until convicted or arrested then these people have a right to be give enough rope to hang themselves in anonymity.
After all, if it works to protect them, it works to protect us...

Possibly because they don't think these are crimes?

There are certain communities who the police refuse to name, but I suspect we know which ones who appear to be strictly law abiding in that the police have never been called out to deal with a problem with them. (Lack of) Honour killings, domestic violence, sexual abuse of children and female genital mutilations are some of the offences that are believed to be unreported in some communities.
Mail.

Parts of the UK are becoming no-go areas for police because minority communities are operating their own justice systems, according to the Chief Inspector of Constabulary.
The rise in ‘community justice’ means crimes as serious as murder and sexual abuse are going unreported – a situation reminiscent of Belfast in the height of the Troubles.
Tom Winsor said police officers were simply never called to some neighbourhoods, where law-abiding people rather than criminals administer their own form of justice
He said: ‘There are some communities born under other skies who will not involve the police at all. I am reluctant to name the communities in question, but there are communities from other cultures who would prefer to police themselves.
‘It’s not that the police are afraid to go into these areas or don’t want to go into those areas,’ he said. ‘But if the police don’t get calls for help then, of course, they won’t know what’s going on.’
Honour killings, domestic violence, sexual abuse of children and female genital mutilations are some of the offences that are believed to be unreported in some cities.

I suspect we now know which communities these are, but a big clue is that they begin with m and ends with uslim.
The problem being of course that (Lack of) Honour killings, domestic violence, sexual abuse of children and female genital mutilations are not crimes to many muslims (particularly the men) and so may not have been reported anyway and the community as a whole does not relate to our society via their traditions and their vile religion which tells them that it's ok for 53 year old perverts to have sex with nine year old girls. It also tells them that they can rape their enemies women, keep slaves and butcher anyone who offends them whilst demanding protection money from those who live in their midst. So in a closed off community, which is what many muslims aim for, such 'crimes' would never be reported anyway as that is the norm for many of them and they see nothing wrong with it.
That is unfortunately where the great socialist/liberal wet dream has left us, with whole communities cut off from the mainstream and encouraged to do so in the name of diversity, keeping traditions which in the modern world would rightly be condemned as barbaric.
Instead of being 'pulled' on such acts, any criticism is met with cries of 'racist' bigot' islamophobe...

A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain said: ‘We all rely on the police to protect our communities and this can be only done through full co-operation and partnership.
‘Co-operation is particularly important for Muslim communities who have experienced a rise in Islamophobic hate crimes.’

That rise being non-existent as the criticism of the Tell MAMA showed when such examples of islamophobia were shown to be mostly words on a computer screen or simply made up.
Until we have a level playing field with total integration, such crimes will carry on, no doubt about it, this is one of the dire legacies mass uncontrolled immigration coupled with multiculturalism and socialist (lack of) ethics where we're the racists never the immigrants/non whites.
And then they'll wonder one day why it all kicks off...

Numpty

I don't use social media, I barely use my pc for blogging and my phone for texting come to that. Not that I'm a technophobe, few engineers are and I co-exist quite happily with various test equipment linked to pc's or with their own output/input monitors.
Yet even if I did, I certainly wouldn't announce to the world where I was or if I was going somewhere, were I to be so stupid as to be on the run from the police, doubly so.
There are some though...
Express.

A THIEF who went on the run for almost a year after stealing £8,000 from his workplace was arrested after positing his location on Facebook.
The 33-year-old stole thousands from the safe at a travel agents in Warrington before running off to Scotland for 10 months.
He was arrested after posting his location on Facebook and was jailed for a year at Chester Crown Court.
PC Graham Davies from Cheshire Police said: "I nearly fell off the chair when I saw that he had decided to not only leave his Facebook profile unprotected but also list his new employer. It was very rewarding to get this offender."

Initially I was wondering why the police are monitoring facebook rather than being out on the beat, however having seen what the police do take seriously on social media and some of the ridiculous arrests made because of faux outrage by various people I probably shouldn't have been wondering at all, it makes for easy arrests and boosts their figures, though sadly does little to stop actual crime other than childish insult. That said, it does strike me that this guy really should have known better because the police may have been informed by anyone looking at his page. You also have to wonder why the idiot didn't change his name or open a different account...
So what's happened is this numpty has justified the police trawling social media for crimes both real and imagined.
Clearly we are turning into a nation of dullards.

So why not just send in the bulldozers?

There's a story doing the rounds which may be apocryphal but which strikes a chord with those of us who are utterly sick of Human Rights Act abuses...
Some travellers set up in the car park of a company and as is their wont, refused to move on when requested to do so. The owner of the factory then used a JCB to dig a huge trench around the car park as it was his property and block the travellers in. Despite protests by the travellers to the police to stop the JCB the police pointed out the guy wasn't breaking the law, the last traveller left the site bare minutes before the digger started on the last few feet of the trench... job done as it were.
Mail.

A group of gypsies who were facing eviction from their illegal camp are claiming it would breach their childrens' human rights if they are forced to move on.
The 78 Irish travellers - who hail from just four families - were told to leave their camp in Hardhorn, Lancashire, by the Court of Appeal in October.
A four-year legal battle has already left taxpayers with an estimated legal bill of £200,000.

So why didn't the council simply let them stay by barricading them in via a trench and earthen walls? Blocking their vehicles on the site and making their lives an utter misery by playing loud music 24/7 along with other non lethal methods of intimidation rather than paying £200,000 to lawyers who have failed (so far)
There's probably some provision in the HRA to prevent it I would guess, still, it does seem like a rather obvious solution to travellers simply not travelling, you get 24 hours to move on... or else.
Hell I'm sure the assorted bleeding hearts and other immature leftards could have come and stood in solidarity with the feckless law breakers, might have kept them occupied and not causing a nuisance in the real world.
Yes I'm sure a case could be made that there aren't enough proper sites available, however travellers behaviour and the effect they have on local communities more or less makes certain that any attempt to set them up grinds to a halt against local opposition. Travellers generally being about as welcome as a dose of bubonic plague.
Just another day and another abuse of the Human right Act...

Not gonna happen

It's always amusing when a member of the government steps forward to announce that something is going to happen, particularly when you read the small print and know a few things about the process they are talking about.
Express.

Pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights is one option being considered for inclusion in the Conservative 2015 election manifesto, said Justice Secretary Chris Grayling.
He has been an outspoken critic of the European Court of Human Rights which polices how Convention rights are implemented in the 47 member states of the Council of Europe.
He has also backed Tory criticism of Britain’s Humans Rights Act by which Labour wrote Convention rights into UK law and which is blamed for enabling legal judgments that critics say are out of line with public opinion, common sense and the national interest.
Such decisions range from ordering Britain to lift its ban on votes for prisoners and outlawing whole life jail terms to blocking the deportation of foreign criminals because they have fathered children in the UK.
Mr Grayling’s determination to secure change will be widely welcomed within Tory ranks.

The problem for Mr Grayling and indeed the Tory Party is that unless we leave the EU, you cannot amend the Human Rights Act because it's tied to our membership of the EU and once enacted by Tony Blair to give his Mrs a nice little earner has tied us to the European Court of Justice as the highest arbiter of Justice in the EU. So unless The Tory Party intend to take us out of the EU in their next manifesto, removing us from the confines of the HRA isn't going to happen either.
What we have is a Tory trying to give his party a good news day by having a pop at something deeply unpopular with a lot of the UK public and having a dig at their coagulation partners for 'preventing' them from doing something about it now. Despite the fact that the Lib Dems even if they supported such a move wouldn't be able to alter it one bit either.
The only way we can remove the HRA from British law would be to remove ourselves from the EU and then begin the task of removing its insidious links from all law referencing it passed since Labour foisted its madness on us back in the 90's and took us away from common law (and sense) to the code Napoleon of the continental system the EU uses to produce laws allowing you your rights as opposed to the UK system of laws which had to specifically deny you a right.
Still no doubt some people will think they can do it, which I guess was the point.

One law for us...

I wonder what a judge would say to most people if they were accused of a crime yet attempted to get the judge to set up a gagging order to prevent anyone knowing they were on trial for breaking the law? I rather suspect that if we weren't a muslim/politician/policeman/lawyer then we'd get pretty short shrift, the legal people looking after their own and in the case of a muslim, falling for the 'cultural' reasoning that they seem to come out with to keep their names out of the press...
Mail.

A judge allowed two Muslim solicitors accused of trying to cheat the legal system to hide behind a cloak of secrecy for ‘cultural reasons’, the Daily Mail can disclose.
He banned reporting of the case of Asha Khan, 30, and her brother Kashif, 34, to prevent them allegedly being shamed in the eyes of their community.
In the latest farce involving secret justice, the pair were told they could enjoy the court’s protection because members of their family would pass judgment if the case was reported.
It is a privilege rarely bestowed on defendants in the justice system, which has operated on the principle of transparency for centuries. However, following a challenge by the Daily Mail, the restriction was lifted – enabling the case to be reported.
Judge Peter Hughes reversed his original ban after deciding that the principle of open justice was more important than saving the embarrassment of a defendant.

One wonders just what kind of judgement their families would pass on a speeding fine... although the real killer charge was perverting the course of justice, neither of which I suspect would faze their community, it's not like they doodled the paedo-prophet now is it?
Not that points swapping is entirely unknown either, just ask Vicki Pryce the ex-wife of ex-MP Chris Huhne and the ludicrous lengths he went to, to cover up his misdemeanour.
No, I suspect most of this was simply personal to try and keep their names out of the press and perhaps... just perhaps not give muslims in general another bad news day.
Yet it does strike me that if the ruling had not been overturned, this would have set a precedent, with all ethnic and cultural groups saying their trials should not be reported for fear of shaming them in their community? After all, precedents are the basis of most new legal decisions with regard to dealing with points of law.
Then again I rather doubt a Christian Lawyer or a Jewish Lawyer would have had the stones to attempt something so blatant to keep their names and their communities names out of the press. I rather suspect this was an attempt to try and tag 'muslim' onto a submission in an attempt to avoid publicity, it's not like judges have not attempted to block publicity on muslim trials in the grooming cases ongoing within the country after all.
Still, kudos to the Daily Mail (for once) in getting this precedent removed, God alone knows what would have happened if it was allowed to stand.

A damning indictment of racism against the white working class

It seems that our police fearful of being racist against certain scum whose religion has become a byword for extremism, intolerance and criminal behaviour decided to ignore the victims of the grooming scandal in Rochdale, because... they were from council estates.
An excuse that is only part of the truth I suspect.
Mail.

One of Britain's worst child sex-grooming gangs was allowed to flourish in Rochdale because police ignored their victims when they found out they were from council estates, the local MP has said.
Labour's Simon Danczuk said officers' class snobbery was one of a catalogue of failings by Greater Manchester Police and other agencies in their handling of the scandal, highlighted in the Serious Case Review published today.
According to its findings, a 'significant part' of the sexual exploitation committed against young girls should have been predicted and prevented.
Five of six victims on whom the report focused were 'clearly in need of early help and at times intervention' by safeguarding agencies for several years before they were abused.
The abuse centred around nine men, eight of Pakistani origin and one from Afghanistan, who worked for or were connected to taxi firms and takeaway food outlets.
Part of the report which showed that, of 40 child protection conferences, for one of the victims there is no record of police attendance or involvement.

You'll note that the racial part of the scandal has been pretty kept under wraps, but has been reported in the press elsewhere that muslim males of Pakistani descent have a major problem with civilised behaviour where it comes to other cultures, particularly women. It's reinforced by their barbaric tribal customs and exacerbated by the religion of the paedo-prophet who had no problems raping, enslaving and deflowering girls at the age of nine. Plus we know that muslims see Mo as the most perfect of men and to be emulated by muslims, so there is a major problem when islam runs up against civilised values.
Where it really goes wrong though is where the political correctness culture becomes a roadblock in the way of treating all victims equally as the police, social services and the CPS were all afraid to act due to having to deal with a minority culture and were afraid of accusations of racism.
Not that this excuses the Pakistani community, they bloody well knew what was going on and condoned it because it wasn't their women being raped and abused!
There is simply no place for islam in a civilised society, we need to be rid of this evil in our midst as soon as possible.