Apparently, according to some people, I rant too much on this site. Well, today, you lucky people, I have a ranting triple bill.
Arrests for all offences proposed. This is a nonsense of an idea, another example of Blunkett’s rampant desire to create a totalitarian state. It will be used as an excuse to arrest all and sundry on the flimsiest of evidence, will lead to a dramatic increase in arrests based on racism and bigotry and will undoubtedly lead to a mass of claims for wrongful arrest. The minorities will feel even more persecuted than they are now. This is certainly not the way to deal with petty crime, not least because it will once again fundamentally increase the burden of administration on a police force that does not seem to be capable of dealing with its current workload. And whilst I’m on the subject, check out the rest of the HMG’s proposals – the arrest powers are getting the headlines, but there is a lot more, such as the increase of powers of Community Support Officers, that should be a matter for concern amongst those of a more centrist or libertarian bent.
Ministers "can not block" £7million win. Too bloody right! The man’s crime was, without doubt, terrible and beyond reason. However, he has been given a punishment by the courts, and should not have a new punishment handed down by politicians because it might be politically expedient to do so, pandering to the lowest common denominator of the baying of the tabloid headlines. If a millionaire businessman had committed a crime of rape, he would not be required to hand over his fortune to the state in addition to serving a jail term. Nor should this man. The lottery is based on luck, and sometimes, as in this case, luck can appear unjust. But justice has been served once already, and there is no need to try and serve a new popular justice now.
Meanwhile, positive ranting as EU’s Barroso strikes balance with Commission posts by involving the medium and small nations in the big decisions, thereby showing that Bertie Ahern knew precisely who was the best man for the job. Genius selections include putting a Dutch woman in charge of competition regulation (the Dutch have a fabulous "can-do" attitude to business that I hope will prevail), giving Irishman Charlie McCreevy charge of the internal market and (probably the best appointment of all) giving the excellent Margot Wallstrom a special mission to improve the EU’s communication with its own people. This last is incredibly important – as a recent newspaper article shows, the EU does actually do what we want – we just don’t notice it. A full list of Commission appointments can be found here.
7 Replies to “Rant”
Comments are closed.
Arggggggggggggggggggh – too much ranting. I think Herr Blunket should make it an arrestable offence. Or maybe the EU could legislate against ranting?
BASTERDS
Damn. I agree with everything you said.
Hi Graham….I disagree with your comment about the 7 million because when he raped the women he did he was technically poor. If a millionaire raped someone and was convicted then the person they raped would be allowed under British law to sue her/his rapist for compensation. Because this man was poor his victims were only able to ask for compensation through the Criminal Injuries board which is a fund set up to compensate for bad policing basically. THe compensation you get is graded and basic – I had my teeth smashed in but was not given compensation because it’s graded lower than having your arm broken. If the person who raped me had had funds then I could have sought compensation for the damage he did to my body – but he was 16. Therefore I have been waiting 2 years for the CICA to make up their mind whether I can have any compensation. In that time I have undergone several painful operations and because I was unable to stabalise my life… I was subsequently beaten up by another man because I trusted him with everything.
I think maybe you should rant less and ask questions first?
A
Thanks for the comment Anna. Your experience sounds terrible.
My point was that the justice system has already laid down its penalty – that penalty, in this case, was the removal of the prisoner’s freedoms and rights for a set period. What I do not believe to be correct is the notion that we can go back and apply a new set of penalties under the judicial system because the prisoner’s circumstances have changed since the crime.
As I understand it, there is nothing to stop the victims of this man now going to court to try to extract compensation for their injury and suffering, as he now has the means to pay. I also wonder if the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board could go to court to try to reclaim from him any monies that they have had to pay out.
There is no need to change the law. The victims already have the powers they need to claim compensation. The judiciary has the powers it needs to hand down penalties. Anything added now would be added for purely populist reasons to curry favour with the Mail-reading voters.
Sorry Graham but British Law is time limited – the people he raped cannot claim against him after 6/7 years (not sure which)…basically he can keep the money because the British government a)won’t back changing this time limit and b)because he now has a big law firm on his side rahter than morality.
British Law is a farce because no prisoner serves their full time.