Right To Be Misremembered

Suppose someone was the victim of vicious and false rumours that they were a convicted paedophile or a notorious fraudster. They could at least discredit the rumour by demanding proof- and use the absence of news reports about them as evidence that the story was false.

Except this option might not be possible anymore because of European Court ruling that people have a right to demand that search engines remove embarrassing search results about their past.

Hail To The All Knowing Ed Miliband.

Oh joy, Labour have a new policy:

The Labour leader will criticise companies with the “wrong values” who do not create jobs, invest in companies or train their staff.

Mr Miliband will tell the party’s annual conference that the days when all businesses are taxed and regulated equally should be over. Instead, firms will be judged according to how they make their money.

So Labour's solution to the economy is to micromanage businesses by judging whether they have the "wrong values"?

Equality before the law is one of the things that enabled England to become a financial and commercial centre centuries ago- as traders knew that if they had a legal dispute in England they would be protected by a legal system where the rule of law was what mattered- not if you were favoured by the powers that be.

This is a valuable asset to this country and to throw it away in favour of special rules for different businesses depending upon whether ministers (with no obvious qualifications for judging the worthiness of businesses) is insane.

Norway & Criminal Justice Disturbing Fact

Norway does not have life sentences in its criminal justice system.

The maximum sentence is 21 years.

I am not sure whether the killer could be sentenced to consecutive sentences for each killing but the way I've understood it in the past is that it doesn't work like that.

12 Men Good & Dumb

Former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich who was caught on tape brazenly discussing how to sell Barack Obama's senate seat has been found not guilty on 23 out of 24 corruption charges by a jury. This begs the obvious question where do they get the morons to sit on juries?

This is a problem over here as well where there is nothing to stop people who are retarded fantasists from deciding the fate of somebody's life.

The problem seems to me to be that the people who sit on juries are usually the people who have nothing better to do, people who have not been entrusted with any great responsibility by anyone who actually knows them are the ones who get to determine whether someone is guilty or not.

The jury system needs quality control in order to actually work.

Saville

After spending over a hundred million pounds to reach a pre-determined verdict the Saville Inquiry is being treated as though it actually uncovered any new information.

We know now what we knew before, that the soldiers claim to have believed that they were under attack before they shot the protesters whereas the protesters say that the paras fired without provocation.

Nothing has changed as a result of Lord Saville declaring that he believes the latter version of events.

All the talk about whether the soldiers involved will be prosecuted ignores the fact that whilst the Saville Report is portrayed as being definitive and unarguable, it is extremely unlikely that the evidence could be considered to prove the guilt of anyone beyond reasonable doubt.

In fact official inquiries are a useful way of throwing the authority of the law behind a particular version of history without actually subjecting it to the rigour the law usually requires.

See also.

Witch Finder Seeks Promotion.

Back in July I argued that the Satanic Ritual Abuse scare of the 1980s and 90s was not merely a metaphorical revival of medieval witch hunts but a direct descendant of them, and that the SRA cases were by and large concentrated in areas settled by the groups (puritans particularly) who had been most obsessed with catching witches hundreds of years ago.

The most famous witch trials in North America were of course those of Salem in the original puritan colony Massachusetts. So it is perhaps not a surprise to learn that one of the two candidates for the state's senate seat left vacant by Ted Kennedy's death, was a leading witch hunter who happily destroyed the lives of wholly innocent people.

Martha Coakley* does appear to be tanking in the polls, which for a Democrat in Massachusetts is extraordinary, but not for any reasons to do with her behaviour in persecuting people accused of satanism. It just seems extraordinary to me that the people involved in these kinds of ridiculous prosecutions are not only not laughed out of polite society but are actually considered serious candidates for higher office.


* Her involvement in the 1997 prosecution of Louise Woodward certainly makes me rethink my previous assessment of that case, which I had assumed the British media were spinning as an "innocent abroad" case but now think she may have actually been innocent.

Let's Begin The Third Opium War!

China's governing regime is corrupt and brutal. It executes many people on trumped up charges and is not deserving of much sympathy. Plus my blog is being plagued by Mandarin spammers (do they really believe that I have enough Chinese readers to make it worthwhile?). However I can't understand the outrage over them executing a convicted drug smuggler.

I do feel sympathy for Akmal Shaikh and his family, however I can't feel a great deal of outrage over the execution of someone who knowingly chose to commit a capital offence even if his supporters claim he was mentally ill (was there any evidence that he was considered mentally ill before his arrest?). It is a tragic waste of a life but China has the right to set penalties for drug smuggling.

Whilst Iain Dale is right to say that "Wars have been started over less", most people consider the Opium Wars, fought to give Britain the right to sell dope to the Chinese, to have been one of our less heroic military ventures.The Chinese are quite touchy about that part of history, burning down the Summer Palace* is a particular sore point, so it would be a mistake for the British government to push this issue too hard as it will weaken our credibility when objecting to real injustices.


* Although I can't see why it should be considered that bad, insofar as it specifically targeted the Chinese government rather than the masses it seems quite a humane policy. The Americans aren't upset about us burning down the White House during the war of 1812 after all, so why the Chinese are so upset is beyond me.

Not Taking Crime Seriously.

It sounds like the judge really cracked down hard on this rapist who was convicted of abducting and raping a 5 year old boy 8 days after he had been convicted and released for raping a 7 year old:

"You are a devious and manipulative young man with an unhealthy and completely unacceptable sexual interest in young boys.

"It is likely you will not be released for some very considerable period of time."

He added that it was "highly unusual" for a court to categorise a 16-year-old as a danger to the public but in this case it was merited.

"I have to say I have absolutely no hesitation whatsoever in reaching the conclusion that you are indeed a dangerous offender," the judge said.

So he's dangerous and devious and the judge says he won't be released for a very long time. So what is his sentence:

He must serve a minimum of three years minus five days before being considered for parole.

Thank God that this monster will be in his late teens before he can roam the streets again!

The UKIP Donation Ruling.

The treatment of UKIP by the Electoral Commission and the courts is so perverse and unlike the treatment of other parties that it is hard to believe that it isn't malicious. Even the BBC's Michael Crick, who I think it is fair to say is unlikely to be a UKIP sympathiser, finds the difference between how UKIP are being treated and how the Lib Dems were treated for a seemingly much more serious offence to be staggering.

The facts of UKIP's offence appears to be:

1. A UK citizen and resident, Alan Brown, gave them money.
   
2. They accepted his donation.
3. It later emerged that the local authority had omitted him from the electoral register a few months prior to the donation.
4. When he found out about his omission he re registered.
5. This meant that the donation was made while he wasn't on the electoral register.

In the circumstances it might seem logical that UKIP would have to repay the donor (who would presumably give the money back to UKIP now he is on the register), however they have been ordered to pay the money to the Treasury, meaning that both UKIP and Alan Brown lose out even though neither of them have attempted at any time to circumvent the law.

Incidentally the amount of the donation is roughly the equivalent to the deposits required to stand in every seat in the UK at the next election.

Note I'm not a member of UKIP and won't be voting for them at the next election, but even so this is an absolutely scandalous decision and hopefully it will be overturned at some point if the Electoral Commission is to retain any integrity.

Mercy To The Guilty Is Cruelty To The Innocent.

As the fall out from the decision to release Megrahi continues- with President Obama and FBI Director Robert Mueller both making unusually strong criticisms of the decision by the SNP government- I thought this quote Adam Smith, one of Scotland's greatest thinkers (even greater than Kenny MacAskill) explains why compassion to someone convicted of Megrahi's crimes is not something that one should base decisions upon:

Such is the account commonly given of our approbation of the punishment of injustice. And so far this account is undoubtedly true, that we frequently have occasion to confirm our natural sense of the propriety and fitness of punishment, by reflecting how necessary it is for preserving the order of society. When the guilty is about to suffer that just retaliation, which the natural indignation of mankind tells them is due to his crimes; when the insolence of his injustice is broken and humbled by the terror of his approaching punishment; when he ceases to be an object of fear, with the generous and humane he begins to be an object of pity. The thought of what he is about to suffer extinguishes their resentment for the sufferings of others to which he has given occasion. They are disposed to pardon and forgive him, and to save him from that punishment, which in all their cool hours they had considered as the retribution due to such crimes. Here, therefore, they have occasion to call to their assistance the consideration of the general interest of society. They counterbalance the impulse of this weak and partial humanity by the dictates of a humanity that is more generous and comprehensive. They reflect that mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent, and oppose to the emotions of compassion which they feel for a particular person, a more enlarged compassion which they feel for mankind.

{Full quote via- The American Thinker- although I already knew the "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent" and was googling it when I found the full passage. }

That Will Teach Them To Clean Up Industrial Waste.

It's possible that I've been taken in by one side's public relations but this verdict seems to fly in the face of science:

A group of 18 young people born with deformed hands and feet after their mothers were allegedly exposed to toxic materials before their birth have won a group action lawsuit against Corby Borough Council.

According to the council various epidemiological have shown that the rate of birth deformities is not particularly high at least not to the point where it is anything other than a statistical blip.

As I say I could be mistaken about this particular verdict but the principle is clear enough. If cleaning up an industrial site leaves individuals or institutions responsible for any random clusters of illnesses that subsequently arise then fewer people are going to risk taking part in the decontamination process.

A similar process has already occurred with obstetricians and the makers of vaccines reducing the services they provide rather than become easy targets for lawyers backed up with junk science.

Magic Dogs, Stupid Juries & Cynical Prosecuters.

What the hell?



As someone who's in favour of both juries and elected prosecuters cases like this are seriously challenging.


{via}

A Lucky Man.

For someone who was too crazy to know what he was doing, you have to admire Kenneth Erskine- The Stockwell Strangler- for his sheer luck in:

• Selecting victims who were unlikely to be able to defend themselves.
• Doing his killings, which he had no control over, in private where no one could intervene to stop him.
• Setting up a web of different back accounts to launder the stolen money through in order to avoid capture.

If his mental illness didn't diminish his capacity to plan his killings in such a way as to reduce the risk to himself, then it doesn't seem like much of an illness to me.

Quote Of The Day.

A defendant has been on the run for the past five years after wounding a man in Potterspury who had tried to stop him drink driving.

So where was this criminal mastermind when he was hiding from the law for half a decade?

Judge Richard Bray said: "A bizarre feature of this case is that in the meantime you have twice been dealt with at the magistrates' court".

This Can't Be Right

I suppose the sentence for stabbing someone should be greater than for possessing child pornography but this seems very off to me:

A Northampton man whose son stabbed him after discovering he had downloaded child porn has escaped a prison term after admitting his perverted obsession.

Martyn Croft was jailed for seven-and-a-half years at Northampton Crown Court in November after he admitted repeatedly stabbing his father, Brian, then leaving the former bank worker bleeding in his bedroom.

An Investigation Should Not Be The Same As A Conviction.

Whilst I'm not a fan of hobby bobbies- aka Police Community Support Officers- or of sex offenders come to that I don't share the outrage over this:

A suspected child sex attacker was recruited as a police community support officer and is alleged to have indecently assaulted a female colleague, The Times has learnt.

The case raises serious concerns over vetting standards in the Metropolitan Police because the 19-year-old man was able to join the force despite disclosing that he had been investigated for a sexual assault on a three-year-old girl.
...........
He was not charged over the incident but that he had been the subject of a criminal investigation into a sex offence should have barred him from joining the police service.

It's revealing that they can't even follow their own vetting procedures but is a blanket ban on anyone who has ever been the subject of an investigation remotely justifiable, regardless it seems of whether they were convicted, prosecuted or even cleared?

It isn't even as if it protects the public because even supposing it does prevent someone who was guilty of a sexual offence (but never charged) become a PCSO, it isn't as if they can do noticeably more harm in that role than as a member of the public.

I Shot The Sheriff. (Well I Should Do).

Sheriff Robert McCreadie has made the headlines repeatedly in the last few months. He isn't exactly known for his harsh sentences:

• Beating up your own parents- £200 fine, no prison.

• Drink driving a bus whilst four times over the limit and assaulting 2 police officers- £400 fine and a driving ban, no prison.

• Man with long criminal record assaults police officers who try to arrest him- No prison if he can find a job offer.

Not generally anyway but there is one sort of criminal offence so serious that the Sheriff feels the need to hand out serious prison time:

Peter Drummond, 26, took matters into his own hands when he barged into the home of John Nellies and berated him for dealing to his brother who was hooked on the drug.

He then snatched five bags of heroin and flushed them away.

But he was reported by one of Nellies' customers and jailed for two months after admitting breaching the peace.

......

But Sheriff Robert McCreadie, sitting at Perth Sheriff Court, ignored pleas for mercy.

"If you were concerned about matters you should contact the police, not enter a house and threaten to kill someone," he said, "You can't take matters into your own hands the way you did."

Is this Robert McCreadie on the heroin dealer's payroll or something? How can he possibly think this is justified?

See also HP post on the same subject.

Update: I suppose I should add that I don't actually think he is on the take. That was merely a rhetorical flourish. Anyway in the above link 'Gregg' links to another of Sheriff McCreadie's exploits:

A BUNGLING sheriff halted court proceedings after he hit the wrong button on his laptop and deleted details of the case he was dealing with.

Sheriff Robert McCreadie abruptly stopped a solicitor as she gave her client's plea and left the bench without any explanation.

After several minutes, he came back into court and said his typing error meant he had erased everything that lawyer Rosie Scott had told him about defendant David Dutchyn.

But instead of apologising, Sheriff McCreadie blamed Ms Scott for talking too fast.

This man is unreal. Also he previously jailed someone for singing the "Spider-pig" song from the Simpsons. To quote 'Idiocracy'- "Justice was not only blind but had become rather retarded as well".

Lawyers Ensure That Criminals/Society Get Screwed

Human rights are a good thing, there should be certain standards to which the state is compelled to meet in its treatment of people. Unfortunately there is a parasitic human rights industry which uses the language of human rights to get judges to twist the law in ever more inventive ways to undermine justice and reward lowlifes.

For instance there is a 'human right' to family life, which is a reasonable aspiration but it is rather ill defined so it can become twisted by the ECHR to mean that prisoners can have the right to start a family:

The inmates, all serving long sentences and including at least one murderer, claim they or their partners will be too old once they are released and should be allowed to donate sperm now for artificial insemination.
Six prisoners in British jails have applied to have children with their partners following a landmark European court ruling that their human rights would be breached if they are prevented from becoming fathers.

It goes without saying that no one anywhere has legislated to allow prisoners to do this, but once a legal culture is established in which judges and lawyers are free to apply interpretations of the law that bear no resemblance to what was either said or intended in the original legislation this kind of subversion of democracy is to be expected.

The case was brought by Kirk Dickson, 34, who is serving a minimum 15 years sentence for kicking a man to death, and his wife Lorraine, 48, who he met through a prison penpal scheme while she was in prison for benefits fraud.

I've got to be honest, I don't want Kirk and Lorraine to reproduce, they are unlikely to be fit parents and come to that their contribution to the gene pool is probably not desirable*. The man Kirk murdered has been removed from the gene pool so it's hard to see why his murderer should not also be removed.

The Dickson legal challenge has already cost the taxpayer more than £20,000 in legal aid.

I'm not even going to comment on the legal aid angle.

Dickson and a friend killed 41-year-old George Askins because he refused to hand over his cigarettes in Lincolnshire in 1994.

Mr Askins' family have previously bitterly attacked Dickson's attempt to have a child.

His brother Peter Askins, 53, said: "If he wanted to have a family he should have thought of that before he robbed my family of a much-loved man."

Well quite, I think their best hope now is that the courts refuse to let him reproduce on the grounds that he's a smoker.

* This may seem controversial but there is a genetic element to criminality as has been demonstrated by adoption studies. When criminals breed they are quite likely to produce future criminals.

That Will Teach Them.

The lenient sentences handed out to the gang rapists, who permanently disfigured their disabled victim with caustic soda, are disgraceful. Letting those responsible for such a crime out of prison after just 3 years brings the law into disrepute.

One of them did receive his just desserts though:

Bradley Daley Smith, 22, and Miguel Almeida, 22, both of Edmonton, north London, and Bruno Abrantes, 24, from Tottenham, were all acquitted of grievous bodily harm.

Charges against three others were dropped while Steven Bigby, 22, of Upper Edmonton, was stabbed to death in Oxford Street while he was on bail.

The Downside Of Juries: Jurors.

The big problem with trial by one's peers is that frequently those peers are gibbering imbeciles. Example one:

A rape victim has hit out at the law after the man accused of attacking her was cleared because he was sleepwalking.

Jane McKenna, 33, was asleep at home when a friend's husband, who had been a guest at a barbecue, walked into the bedroom and started having sex with her.

Jason Jeal, a 37-year-old roofer with no medical history of sleepwalking, admitted sex had taken place. But he was cleared of rape after he insisted he had been asleep and had no idea what he was doing.

Uh huh. This defence could clear anyone of anything. The only evidence that he was sleepwalking is that he claims not to remember what he was doing, this is also a symptom of being drunk.

Speaking outside his home in Portsmouth, the former member of Portchester Cricket Club said: 'I did not use sleepwalking in my defence as I did not have any doctor's evidence or anything to back that up,' he said. 'With me, sleepwalking normally comes on through drink. People have told me I've done it before.'

So he exhibits symptoms similar to being drunk after drinking and concludes he must have been sleepwalking, and a jury buys that?

{via}