Thursday, 17 June 2010

Ken Clarke, the criminals' friend and the scum he wants to set free

Ken Clarke, as noted below, sees his priority as (wouldn't know) Justice (if it came and fucked him in the arse) Minister, to stop convicted criminals getting sent to jail and set them free if they're already there.

Yeah, because our legal system is soooo harsh, isn't it? Like this example. A man beats an old woman with an iron bar and tries to suffocate her. Then leaves her for dead after robbing her purse. Not only did this devil do this to a defenseless old woman, he did it to someone who had tried to help him.

What does the Crown Prosecution Service do? They drop the attempted murder charge, because they can't be fucked to do their jobs, and take a plea bargain of wounding with intent. What does the judge do? He gives him five years (or as it's known in legal fiction 'ten years'). So, Ken, what would you have given him? 100 hours community service? Get him to paint over some graffitti?

This piece of trash should be hanged. That's not just my opinion, that's the opinion of the overwhelming majority, and one of these days, we'll get our country back, and you better hide, Ken, cos by the look of you, you ain't gonna be running far. But meanwhile, enjoy yourself, with your fancy-dress wig and your gown and your fucking Hush Puppies. You couldn't be more out of touch if you were in a floatation tank in the middle of the Gobi Desert.

6 comments:

girl x said...

You need a Utah justice system. ;-)

Trooper Thompson said...

You can say that again.

Longrider said...

So what about sending a grandmother to gaol for keeping an old WWII trophy pistol without ammunition? We can always find cases that support a viewpoint and this one supports Clarke's point.

Clarke is right in that we send too many people to prison. There are too many offences on the statute book - and the case I mention is a classic example of bad law; the absolute liability with no defence. We also need to give the CPS a shake up so that they prosecute appropriately. A does of common sense would be a start...

Clarke is the wrong target here. If he does nothing about it, then that's another matter.

Trooper Thompson said...

You cannot use the example of a stupid law being enforced to the maximum to excuse all the many examples of justice being denied to victims of crime, such as the one I mention here.

I've made my position very clear vis a vis the right to keep and bear arms, and it's certainly the case that there are too many offences on the statute book, and if I had the chance I would reduce it down to a very small number of general offences, but having done that, a man who beats an old woman with an iron bar, tries to suffocate her, then robs her and leaves her for dead will be lucky to ever walk the streets again. Personally I think he should hang. Trying to kill somebody and failing is no less serious than actually killing somebody, and as the victim was a defenceless old woman, the level of callousness compounds the crime.

People should be sent to prison on the basis of what they've done, not on how many other people are in jail already. Clarke is saying that sending someone to jail for 6 months for a minor delitto of burglary for example is a waste of time and money, so let's just let him go free. I say burglary is not a minor delitto but a serious offence which should be punished more severely if you don't want people to do it.

The Law should be simple, clear, known to everyone and equally applied to everyone. From Clarke's opening statements in his new job, I see no indication that he will improve matters and return this country to the Rule of Law, or that he even understands what the problems are. If he manages to do something right, I will try to acknowledge it, but I don't hold out much hope, and every time I see cases such as the one I mention I am going to blame him, because it's his job.

Longrider said...

You appear to be misreading my point. I used one example of a bad law to make the point that you were doing much the same. Nothing I said indicated that I was using it as an excuse for anything, let alone for justice being denied to others.

There are too many laws and as such, too many convicted people - that grandmother is merely one example of a person who should not be in prison. I suspect that many of those currently inside shouldn't be there.

The law should be simple, clear, evenly applied and people should go to prison because they have caused harm to others, no other reason.

The other problem as I said in the earlier comment is the CPS and its willingness to go for soft targets. Couple that with some strange sentencing guidelines and you have the situation you rail against.

I'm prepared to give Clarke and the new administration the benefit of the doubt for the moment. I'll judge them on what they do (or fail to do).

All of that said, you will see that we are saying pretty much the same thing.

Trooper Thompson said...

Okay, on reflection I admit I'm reacting to the headline rather than the body of what he said, and I'm presupposing that he will not make the changes that I believe are necessary to the justice system.

I won't rewrite the post, because I quite liked the line about the floatation tank :), but I'll try to clarify my position in another post.