11 December 2006
ACCORDING to a report entitled Refugees and other new Migrants:
'White and black minority ethnic respondents displayed similar [negative] attitudes towards recent migrants which corresponds to reports that tensions do not necessarily arise along racial lines.'
Or maybe that white Britons aren't the only racists.
Also, Hazel Blears voices her concern that the issue of immigration could adversely effect New Labour's chances at the next General Election here
THE logic behind the introduction of the Human Rights Act by New Labour back in heady 1998 remains something of an enigma; its sole purpose still seemingly to be to urinate liberally upon the face of every upstanding British citizen by adding an incredibly potent tool to the already impressive legal arsenal available to the 'aggrieved' wrongdoer.
Many will recall that back in mid-November the Home Office was forced to cough up £689,500 in an out-of-court settlement to 198 Heroin-addicted criminals, who claimed that the robust detoxification programs they underwent in gaol amounted to clinical negligence and a breach of articles 3, 4 and 14 of the
European Convention on Human Rights (introduced under the Human Rights Act) by the Prison Service. Each claimant received around £3,800 in damages.
Of course there are numerous such examples, each desperately vying with the previous to transcend mere absurdity, littering the act's six-year existence (it came into force in 2000); each occasion representing the crucifixion of justice and rationality alongside the contorted, infernal road that leads us on our shuffling death-march through ashen wastes to the ultimate completion of the New Labour project.
The contention that the act primarily serves the iniquitous was yet again aptly demonstrated on Thursday at the culmination of a case which caused a considerable disquiet throughout those civilised portions of the nation. Obviously, if Mr 'A' (see previous link) had wanted to remain in this country he should have considered that before committing his heinous act, but then such hideous people are incapable of rational thought; being propelled through life purely by a volatile mixture of narcissism and testosterone. As long as our emasculated criminal justice system continues to prostrate itself before imported and home-grown filth like this it is only inevitable that our decline into lawlessness will escalate and the more foreign dregs, encouraged by our feebleness, will be attracted to our benighted shores.
ANOTHER instance highlighting just what a peace-loving, tolerant religion Islam is has come to light. A proclamation in the southern Somali town of Bulo Burto calls for all shops and public places to be closed during prayer time to ensure religious observance. Those who do not comply, 'will definitely be beheaded according to Islamic law [Sharia],' according to Sheik Hussein Barre Rage, chairman of the town's Islamic court. And critics have the audacity to call us Christians 'intolerant'?
All together now:
Bismillah ar-rahmaan ar-raheem
Al-hamdu lillahi rabb al-alameen
Ma[a]liki yawm ad-deen
CAN Blair's unusually severe and (equally uncommonly) sensible comments about the divisive effects of immigration and non-integration at the close of last week be genuine or are they, like most of what he emits, just so much hot air, let off in order to persuade the alienated electorate he does actually give a damn?
'But when it comes to our essential values - belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage - then that is where we come together, it is what we hold in common; it is what gives us the right to call ourselves British. At that point no distinctive culture or religion supercedes our duty to be part of an integrated United Kingdom,' doesn't really sound much like the UK the majority of us would recognise and Blair's motley crew can hardly be said to have done much to encourage it; in fact they seem to have done much to discourage it. Decide for yourself whether the PM's merely being a supreme hypocrite here.
HOME Office figures have revealed that 614 serious offences have been committed in the last two years by criminals on probation. These included 98 murders, 106 rapes, 37 manslaughters and 32 attempted murders. Under New Labour those given non-mandatory life sentences are being released after an average of only six years, contrasting with an average of 9 years in 2004 and 14 years in 1998.
It also disclosed that 990 prisoners released on parole were recalled to gaol for breaching their terms or re-offending, an increase of 30 per cent and that 111 prisoners with 'life sentences' on parole were recalled in the same period, a rise of 56 per cent.
A chronic lack of prison spaces, bought about by the government's socialist views on criminality, has lead to softer sentencing and pressure on the Parole Board to release potentially dangerous criminals early, resulting in this sorry state of affairs. Where will it all end?
Of the 893 cases scrutinised, some 20 per cent received almost 60 per cent of all warning letters, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs) and ASBOs issued. This fifth of criminals were found to have an average of 50 previous convictions each, compared with an average of 24 for the remainder. A spokesman for the NAO said that there is, '…a hard core of perpetrators for whom interventions had limited impact.' If they are so 'hard core' one might be forgiven for enquiring as to why they aren't behind bars, or breaking rocks in a quarry somewhere, or – better still - in a pit being liberally sprinkled with calcium oxide?
In refusing to build extra prison places and plumping instead for electronic tagging, ASBOs, ABCs, and shorter sentencing, this government is itself guilty of breaching a contract which any democratically elected administration has with its law-abiding citizens: that it is their obligation to provide a force – not a 'service' – that will guard us from the ravages of the criminal classes so that we are not obliged to 'take the law into our hands', a road that would eventually to anarchy. In this obligation they have utterly failed, in large part because of their continuing attachment to the incoherent socialistic dogma that criminals are themselves the wretched victims of a societal disease, which is seen to derive from economic privation and social inequity, instead of any inborn wickedness. This demented creed demands treatment instead of punishment and compassion instead of retribution. In the operation of this foolish, compassionate policing the ASBO is just another characteristic New Labour gimmick simultaneously calculated to make the government appear to be alert to crime whilst keeping wrongdoers out of gaol.
As Bill Bratton, former Commissioner of the NYPD under Mayor Giuliani, said of the UK earlier this year: 'You can do something about crime. You can control it. … You need smart policing, intelligence-led policing, you need resources. This is not rocket science. Fighting crime is not the most difficult thing in the world.' This is, of course, obvious, but the major problem facing effective crime fighting in the UK is of an ideological nature: it is the pandering attitudes of our politicians and police chiefs towards criminals that has unleashed an epidemic of lawlessness onto our streets and unless these notions are relinquished the situation will undoubtedly get worse.
Regarding these findings Home Office minister Anthony McNulty made this extraordinary response: 'The breach of an ASBO is not the failure of the ASBO but the failure of the individual to abide by its conditions.' And why shouldn't the individual abide by its conditions, Mr McNulty? Is it because he has absolutely nothing to fear from our inadequate criminal 'justice' system?