IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Attitudes & Opinions Is David Blunkett the most short sighted Home Secretary Ever |
|
Is David Blunkett the most short sighted Home Secretary Ever |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 |
|
No it has nothing to do with being blind. A lot of blind people have terrific vision. It's about being stupid. I would say that it's stupid even to consider creating a load of mini-Broadmoor type secure units to house people suspected of going to commit a crime before they have done so. Well, that proposal got dropped before making it to the floor of the House of Commons, so perhaps it was just the mad media, maliciously making moronic suggestions. But this latest load of old judicial rubbish, contained in the White Paper and seemingly guaranteed to pass into law without opposition, is there in black and white, for all to see. "Criminal justice" was the witty, snappy, soundbite explanation from New Labour, issued on the very day that an innocent man was released from prison after serving 25 years for a crime he did not commit, because he claimed to be a victim and not a criminal. First, let's just give a second's thought to the proposed new law making it a seven year jail sentence offence to pay for a legal service. Quite apart from the Human Rights ramifications, there are the practical reprecussions. "Thank you for the 100 pounds, Mr. Punter, but I have to tell you I lied about being an 18 year old hooker. I'm 16 and will go to the police unless you give me 100,000 pounds." So blackmail offenses increase. "I don't have 100,000 pounds and can't face seven y ears in prison, so I'm killing you." So murders increase. Or, scenario two... Seventeen year old girlfriend is spurned by 19 year old boyfriend so she claims the 10 pound for the cinema tickets was payment for sex and gets him locked up. Or scenario three... Unhappy wife finds hubby is having an affair, wants a divorce, custody of the kids, compensation cash, anonymity, symypathy...oh, wrong law. That one exists already. Seriously insane, isn't it? Blunkett, pretending to create modern sex offence laws, has failed to see any logical consequences and has put forward a charter for pimps, blackmailers, false allegations, rape exaggerations and dozens of other crimes. If we're talking repercussions, how about the human rights consequences for implants under the skin to monitor sex offenders get excited ("Beckham scores for England-thousand of arrests"?) or removing passports (wait until the tabloids notice the ramifications of keeping all sex offenders from going abroad to offend - "not in my backyard"!). And does he really believe that children are incapalbe of making up stories about unpopular teachers or foster parents or stepfathers or care home workers? Doe he really believe that everyone who cries rape is telling the truth? Does he really believe historical allegations of abuse going back decades, with no need for cooroboration are occasionally provoked by greed? By caricaturing thw ord victims, he is opening the door wide to a vast quantity of abuses. Isn't Government meant to reflect intelligent perception of future repercussions? Or is it just meant to obey the hysterial, mindless, one dimensionality of the tabloid headlines? Well, the answer to our headline questions has to be...YES!
|
|
|
|
