Sunday, January 07, 2007

Killers walk free police reluctant to tell public.

Often critics of certain ideologies refer to the PC Police arguing that a particular concept of political correctness is being policed by the state. But in this case the PC police are literally the PC POLICE.

Consider this incident with two escaped murderers. Now remember these men are not wanted for traffic violations. They both killed people. And for some reason which escapes human logic the two were held in an “open prison”. Surely that is oxymoron if I ever heard one. And apparently the men didn’t think the “open prison” in the United Kingdom was much of a prison either. They both walked away from the prison.

Isn’t it nice to know that violent killers can be treated so loosely that they can just up and walk away from prison. Now you figure there are two escaped murderers on the loose that the police would worry about this. Not in the UK. The Chief constable for Derbyshire, where this happened, was asked by the media for photos of the killers so that they could warn the public who these men are and perhaps even help recapture them.

But Chief constable David Coleman refused to release the photos. He said that he was concerned that the release of their photos would violate their human rights. He said this might violate the Human Rights Act and “data protection laws”.

The latter comment is ironic. The Blair government has maliciously and consistently done more to accumulate date on law abiding citizens than any other “free” nation around including the United States. Blair has been far more energetic on this assault on individual freedom than even his partner his crime, Bush.

Apparently all this data they collect on people can be used to watch innocent people but none of it can be used to track down actual criminals. This is not political correctness this is a police state.

Coleman refused to release the photos. He promised that these violent killers were no threat to the public. And he suggested that they probably left the country anyway. Apparently Coleman is a psychic as well as an idiot.

Here is another lunacy regarding the state of affairs in Blair’s England. The press reports that both men were “being held at the category D Sudbury open prison to finish their life sentences, which were both imposed in 1996.” So ten years ago they were sentenced to life in prison and now they were finishing those sentences! In other words life sentence does not mean life sentence. But then apparently prison doesn’t mean prison either as the men “had been allowed periods of home leave and work placements” as well.

Thirteen prisoners have walked away from this “open prison” in just the last two months and 660 have done so in the last 10 years, which is just over one per week.

Of course there was an outcry over this. The Derbyshire police released two contradictory statements. In the one they said they said they take into account public interest, local policing purposes and “the Human Rights and Data Protection acts.” In a second statement they said “that the human rights of the individuals in question had no bearing and were not the reason the pictures were not released.” They can’t even lie convincingly.

The problem with left-wing concepts of human rights is that they ignore real human rights such as the right to life, liberty and property in favor of pseudo-rights such as “equality”. To enforce their category of equality rights they have to violate real rights. And now they have reached the stage where the crimes that are thought serious are those which violate the Nanny state and not the rights of others.

For instance an elderly driver in the UK was jailed for driving 8 miles an hour over the speed limit. Nor should we forget some of the other incidents regarding the English police. They arrested a group of children for climbing trees. The children had their DNA taken and added to Blair’s Big Brother data base. They were locked in cells from which they couldn’t just walk away. But then they were kids climbing a tree and not convicted killers.

Or take the case of 77 year old Jean Grove. Her husband put up a joke sign 32 years ago on their front gate which said “Our dogs are fed on Jehovah’s Witnesses”. Not even the annoying Witnesses said they found the sign offensive but an amusing way to tell them not to bother these people. But British police went to the house and had a talk with Grove informing her that the sign was offensive and inappropriate (not illegal) and that she must remove it.

Then there was the case of Donald Reynolds, who owns a small shop in the UK. One day, when his shop was closed, he received an urgent call from the police saying he must come down to his shop immediately. Fearing the worse he did. When he arrived at his Bromyard shop the police were standing outside and they ordered him to unlock the shop immediately so that they could arrest three toy “gollywogs” that were on sale. Now nothing about the sale of the toys is illegal but the police said they neglected the sensitivities of others.

So real rights are ignored while the pseudo-right of not being offended is preserved.

Let me recount something that happened only a week or two ago in a small English town. A loud, abrasive, obnoxious and large young man in his early 20s comes into a fast food restaurant. He pushes his way past the line of customers waiting to be served so he can go to the front of the line. He starts yelling at the top of his voice to his “mates” working in the shop. He was very disruptive. One older woman said something and the next thing he was in her face physically intimidating her and screaming at her.

The restaurant staff pretended they didn’t see what was happening. Even after I protested to the manager he pretended he saw nothing. I protested again and he said: “Well, if he keeps it up I’ll say something.” Of course this woman had been harassed for several minutes already. Finally the woman turned and fled the restaurant while this thug again pushed his way back to the front of the line. He spent about 15 minutes in the shop intimidating numerous people intentionally.

Finally he leaves and five minutes later the police walk in. They come in and speak to the manager and then go stand in front of the restaurant. I assume the woman called them but I’m not sure. I finished eating and then walk outside past the police. I started down the main street when I see this thug standing on the corner with his friends. The police are still standing in front of the restaurant so I turn and walk back them.

“The man who was intimidating the woman inside the restaurant,” I said to them, “is standing right there.” I point him out to them. The police responded: “Yes, we know. We’ll talk to him when he’s not with his friends.”

How nice of them. They didn’t want to embarrass the thug in front of his friends. But then if murderers in Blair’s England have “life sentences” that last just over ten years and they run prisons were killers can go home on visits and walk away when they feel like it then something like harassing an elderly woman is obviously well down the list when it comes to seriousness.

Crimes against Nanny are strictly enforced. Real crimes are ignored. The DNA of children can be taken for the crime of climbing a tree but the police are reluctant to release the photos of murderers over their privacy! All of this are indications that the British state is out of control. Blair must go and go now. And the British voters ought to punish Labour good and hard in the next election so that they learn their lesson. Tyrants, even Nanny tyrants like Blair, ought to be in jail not in parliament.