Burglars in jail don't burgle, shocked researchers find

New research shows, quelle surprise, that if you don't release burglars from jail, they don't burgle as much.

Will this impress the Gadarene Swine in charge of the criminal justice system (falsely so-called)? Highly unlikely. I don't think anyone's quite sure how truth works its way through the labyrinthine defence mechanisms of denial, sub-marxoid sociology and cynical apathy erected around those bureaucrats.

I look forward to additional studies on the effects on the crime rates of shooting burglars in the act of burglary. It may be just a hunch, but I'm sure this would also work as a reduction strategy. Perhaps the Home Office could return our fundamental, constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms in order to facilitate some research?

Now, take a look at this run-of-the-mill news item from the United States:

The British equivalent of this story would feature an old man dead, or lying in a hospital bed, his face purple and swollen, his daughter tearfully describing how his war medals had been stolen.

Assisting suicide should remain a crime

I don't have a TV, so I only pick up second hand on the 'big things' occurring on the idiot box. Thus I gather that there has been a bit of a heart-string-puller, calling for the law to be changed to allow for those who kill people who want to die to be given a free pass.

I say not. If someone truly believes that it is the moral thing to do to kill someone they love, then let them do so, there is no prior restraint. But once it is done, they will be held accountable, and should be brought in front of a jury.

I don't think there is much appetite to punish such crimes, certainly not to the full measure or anything close that is allowed by law, and juries need to bear in mind that they are free to find someone not guilty, even when they think that he is. And after that you're only facing our wishy-washy judiciary, so you will have a fair chance of getting away with it, if it seems like a genuine mercy killing.

That is as good as it should get. No one should be given a licence to kill, and I am not at all sure that someone can consent to their own death, in strictly legal terms. Leaving the law as it stands leaves the weight where it ought to be - prohibiting the taking of a human life. As such, only those wholly convinced of the rectitude of taking such a serious step will proceed. Changing the law, in any case, will not remove the necessity of investigating such events.

Tagging: Accessory to Murder

‘They can do anything that they want because the law won’t do anything. The police do their job – they take them in – but they just have to let them go.’

So says the mother of murdered Steven Grisales, responding to reports that the youth who stabbed her son to death for nothing did so after the bureaucrats and rule-writers of the so-called justice system had done everything in their power to ensure that the violent criminal was free to kill. They refused to punish him for robbery or burglary or any of a catalogue of offences, so now they are forced, at least for a little while, to finally do something.

It was the porn wot dun it

A twelve-year-old boy rapes a nine-year-old girl. Who's to blame? Well, according to the judge, certainly not the boy, who indulged the boy's plea that it was the internet porn wot dun it, and those who are seeking to clamp down on the freedom of the internet are happy to let justice be sacrificed in order to back up their case.

It is indeed true that the internet has widened and facilitated access to porn, just as it has to all manner of information, but even if we accept without question that porn has a corrupting influence, we are still obliged to deal with a violent young offender, who has shown himself to be a danger to others. The judge may choose to believe that the crime was his response to viewing the porn, but this is not a usual or natural response, and if the child is capable of this crime now, what should we expect in the future?

In a humane society, there are no easy answers to how to deal with dangerous young criminals, but exonerating them of all responsibility is no answer at all.

Conspiracy to burgle

Police are (not) seeking the accomplice of a prolific burglar and convicted rapist. 'Judge' Carol Hagan (above) was instrumental in helping criminal Jason Reed from escaping from Bristol Crown Court with a slap on the wrist.

Taxation, Theft and Pragmatism

As any right-thinking anarcho-libertarian will tell you; taxation is theft, or to be more accurate, robbery. This kind of straight talk tends to make the minarchists and classical liberals wince. They may concede the point on the blandly rational grounds that it is correct, but they find it a little tactless to point it out too stridently, especially as their aim is not to abolish the state entirely, but rather to cut it down to a more manageable size.

Nevertheless, there is no reason for the various strands of libertarianism to fall out. I would say the time for that would be when the ‘night-watchman’, minimal state has been achieved, and until that time, the disputes amongst us are largely academic. We are lumbered with the status quo, and that includes a big state and heavy taxation. But, by accepting the fundamental injustice of taxation, it does at least free us from seeking after the will o’ the wisp of a ‘fair’ system, a ‘neutral’ system, and instead lets us focus the mind on reducing taxation in general and the very heart of the matter; government spending.

Whatever the theoretical destination may be, the only way to get there is by little steps, just as long as they’re steps in the right direction. Bringing in new taxes, even with the intention that they will replace other ones would seem to be a mistake, with the risk that we’ll wind up with the old ones and the new ones. Better to freeze the system as is, and then start chipping away at it, piece by piece.

Some taxes seem more pernicious than others. An example, in my view is Inheritance Tax, or Death Tax, as it should be known. Not only does it visit injustice upon the heads of the bereaved, it causes sub-optimal decisions to be taken by the individual while still alive, in order to minimise the bill. Nevertheless, an attempt to abolish it will provoke political opposition with the accusations that it is helping the rich – the implication being that anything which does so, harms the poor. This brings us to the issue of political expediency.

If the possibility arises to cut taxes, it would seem sensible to ‘spread the joy’ as widely as possible. I would target VAT on fuel, alcohol and cigarettes. The justification for this would be that each of these is already subject to a separate duty. A reduction of the cost of fuel would benefit everyone, either directly or indirectly. Not only this, it would be visible. Other targets could be the aforementioned Death Tax and Employer NI. This latter seems a singularly foolish levy on employment, and its abolition could only improve the jobs market. No doubt the left would demand the saving be passed on to workers (a quick way to nullify the point of the change), but it should not be difficult to make a convincing political case for ending Employer NI.

Reducing the size (not to say sheer weight) of the tax code must also be a priority. I suggest setting a target that it should be no bigger than ‘War and Peace’ would be a good place to start.

In summary, a libertarian programme of tax-cutting, whether premised on the inherent criminality of tax or a more moderate position, should avoid attempts to find ‘fairer’ means to provide loot to the government (such as ‘shifting the burden’ onto the rich), but should rather seek to freeze the system as it is, and then proceed to dismantle it little by little, through across-the-board reductions or when possible the abolition of particular taxes. There should be no new taxes (with one possible exception: cannabis!), and an overtly populist tone should be struck, with the stress on giving the people back their money.

(Cross-posted at Libertarian Home, where you can read my responses to someone advocating a large increase to the income tax threshold, rather than across-the-board tax reductions).

Is Obamacare going down?

Here's Judge Napolitano discussing day 3 of the Supreme Court hearing into Obamacare. Although there's plenty of time to wait for the ruling, it seems like Obama's unconstitutional dragon may have met its St. George.

Graham Mitchell - Victim of Monstrous Injustice: Update

Not here, but at Anna Raccoon's, who has dug into how exactly someone, acquitted 20 years ago, can find himself facing extradition for killing a man who is still alive.

The European Arrest Warrant is one of the clearest examples of how this country's membership of the European Union has been used to nullify long-established protections against the violence of the state.

Let us not accept the Nuremburg Defence when it comes to this treasonous attack on justice. Yes indeed, vile scum like Graham Watson MEP, who boasts of his involvement in having the 'legislation' enacted, are guiltier than most, but guilty also are the pen-pushing Judas trash and black-uniformed goons who have taken this ludicrous warrant from the Portuguese authorities and used it to attack an innocent man.

We are told that the UK government are 'looking into the matter'. What that means in reality is FUCK ALL. The Tory Party and even more so the Lib Dems, of which vile scum Graham Watson MEP is one, are instrumental in implementing this rape of our Magna Carta rights. See below for details:

France, Turkey and various genocides

The French plan to criminalise denying that the mass killing of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks was genocide is foolish and wrong. I suppose the logic they are using is; 'if denying the genocide of Jews by the Nazis is a crime, then so should other genocides", which makes sense, but then denying the Holocaust should not be a crime in any society which values freedom.

Now they're in a diplomatic spat with the Turks, whose position is, I believe, historically indefensible - and I guess I better say that, given the European Arrest Warrant - as they go further than denying genocide into complete whitewash. Now they're kettling the French pot with counter-accusations that Marianne has more than a spot of genocidal blood on her hands vis à vis la guerre d'Algérie.

Matters of historical controversy should not be dealt with through criminalising opinion, no matter how demonstrably false such opinions are or how offensive some find them. It is no business of the state to be ruling on what did and did not happen in the past.

Judge get it wrong again

Three and a half years for breaking into a house and holding a family hostage with a machete is not sufficient.

Elsewhere in our judicial car-crash, award for most ridiculous defence plea goes to Christopher Millington QC who told the court that Jayden Copeland-Marks (nickname 'Murder'), who gate-crashed a party and shot the host in the face with a sawn-off shotgun:

'He was a virtual stranger at this party and had no ill feeling towards anybody. He has shown genuine remorse.'

I would suggest that shooting someone in the face was a pretty sure indication of ill-will.

Update: I could go on all day. Here's another monstrous sentence: 3 years for beating a two year old child to death. Unbelievable.

So ... stealing ain't against the law?

We've all heard about the increase in theft of metal, including the abhorrent theft of war memorials. Now I read at MiniTrue:

Tougher regulations on the scrap metal trade are needed to combat "soaring" theft, including that of plaques from war memorials, say town hall chiefs.

The LGA proposals also include installation of CCTV with automatic number plate recognition in scrapyards, and the requirement that dealers keep a log of sellers' details.

They also want scrapyards to renew their licences every year.

Now, I'm not an expert in these matters, but I was under the impression that theft and receiving stolen goods were both against the law. The notion, therefore, that new regulations are needed to take action against perpetrators is absurd. What is being proposed is using the current situation to increase state interference and increase the protection money rake-off the state imposes on that industry.

All because the state, in its operation of the so-called justice system, has neglected to enforce the law against thievery (perhaps from a guilty conscience). Rather than do its job for once, the state exploits the situation to grab more power and money from the public.

Somebody needs to capture these thieves and their accomplices, give them due process and then hammer them into the ground, and make them pay the cost they have inflicted on the victims of their crimes.

Is that so much to ask? Is the law to be left unenforced in the matter of plundering metal? Are you perhaps too busy arresting children for taking pictures of a parade?

Bleeding Heart BBC: the looters' friend

Of all the vile scum who trashed London and other cities back in the summer, the BBC has little to say, they've been too busy scouring the courts for someone to hold up as a victim of harsh justice. The poor little lamb served 6 days.

Yes, we can all recognise that this particular individual is not much of a menace to society. What we cannot do is ignore the reality that the worst of the looters should have been under lock and key at the time of the riots, because they had already been convicted of serious offences (serious as far as the public is concerned, regrettable consequences of disadvantage and inequality in the eyes of the contemptible establishment). Neither should we neglect to note that, with a handful of exceptions, the courts have done what they always do - let the fuckers go with a slap on the wrist, to continue their predation on the rest of society.

As I've said before, the best way to solve the problem of looting is to give the shopkeepers shotguns, and hand out cash prizes.

Longest sentence yet for rioter! Not long enough

Some piece of trash looter has been handed two and a half years for his crimes. The Guardian reports this using the judicial slang of 'five years', which we all know means something less than half of that.

This is apparently the longest sentence yet, which just goes to show that for all the bluster about getting tough, the justice system has done what it always does: treat the criminals as victims of a cruel, unequal society.

These scum are lucky I'm not major of London. I'd have handed out guns to the shop-keepers and paid a bounty for every looter.

Tram woman: unlikely martyr

Talk about over-doing it. The woman who mouthed off on the Croydon tram is now remanded in custody, after being detained for a number of days, for what? Being rude and abusive in public, no more, no less. Big fucking deal.

A fitting punishment would be for her to have been kicked off the tram and banned by the tram company. They would be well within their rights to safeguard their customers from foul-mouthed tirades. That should be the end of the story. If an additional slap on the wrist for breach of the peace or what have you were deemed necessary, then so be it, but are there not bigger fish to fry?

According to the beak, she's being remanded in custody for her own protection. Now, what does that say about the matter? It seems almost to condone violence against her, to imply that violence would be an understandable response.

We all know that the legal establishment doesn't give a flying fuck to protect the public from real criminals. Whenever you read of someone getting stabbed to death, you can guarantee that the perpetrators have criminal records as long as your arm, but they are set free until such a point as they force the hand of our indulgent authorities.

The only laws that matter are the common laws, not the bullshit that recent governments have instigated. As such, as noted, she is no doubt liable to be found in breach of the peace, but anything over and above that is politically-motivated social engineering.

Is there an anthropologist in the house?

The history of Junior Henry's treatment at the hands of the judiciary is mystifying. He is obviously, demonstrably, a vicious, dangerous enemy of society. There is no mitigation, there is no justification. Even for those who seek explanations for his vile acts in factors external to himself, there is still no escaping the reality that he poses a threat to everyone unfortunate enough to encounter him, and thanks to the judiciary, that threat will be manifest in two years time.

Leaving aside how we should administer justice for the moment, morally-speaking he deserves to be stabbed multiply and left to bleed in the gutter, and whatever sentence is passed on his crimes should take this into account.

This blog has attacked judges many times. On this occasion, I cannot summon the indignation. I have not the ability to explain the workings of the judge's mind. Hence the post title. Perhaps a team of anthropologists could be sent in, and by applying the methods used in analysing obscure New Guinean tribes and their belief systems, we could discover how this judge came to the conclusion that two years incarcerated at public expense is a fitting response to this man's war on the rest of us.

EDL need to challenge the unlawful arrests in Westminster

Whilst I am no particular fan of EDL, it seems they are being used as the canary in the coal mine for the overt authoritarianism of the state police. How else are we supposed to interpret the arrest of 170 people who were doing nothing wrong, breaking no law and not in any way likely to break any law?

Whether or not you share the EDL's view of our nation, what cannot surely be doubted is that the members consider themselves patriots, and as such - and as evidenced by all their official statements on the matter - they were not in Westminster to cause trouble but to pay their respects to the nation's war dead. Although it is no doubt the case that a poppy-burning salafist would have provoked a reaction, there is not one shred of evidence that any of the arrested were doing anything wrong.

Consulting the Great Oracle (Wikipedia), I learn:

"In England and Wales, breach of the peace is not an offence, in the sense that it is not punishable either by a fine or imprisonment either at statute or common law and nor do proceedings for breach of the peace give rise to any conviction. In England and Wales, constables (or citizens) are permitted to arrest a person to "prevent a further breach of the peace" which allows for the police or the public to arrest a person before a breach of the peace has occurred. This is permitted when it is reasonable to believe should the person remain, that they would continue with their course of conduct and that a Breach of the Peace would occur."

This is very important. We were told, through the media, that the arrests took place "to prevent a breach of the peace" NOT a further breach of the peace. If words have meanings, it is clear that the only occasion that someone can be arrested to prevent a breach of the peace is if they are already committing or have already committed such a breach.

EDL have some thinking to do. My advice to them would be to pool their resources and get some proper legal advice and challenge the lawfulness of these arrests. They must be mindful of being manipulated as 'useful idiots'. They might also want to re-think who the real enemy is - the authoritarian state.

(P.S. According to that Wikipedia clip, citizens have the same power of arrest, so next time maybe EDL should arrest the cops on the same charge.)

Why were EDL members arrested?

There's something very fishy in the arrest of 150 EDL supporters for the crime of ... err ... what exactly? According to the Graun, the fuzz stepped in and arrested 150 "to prevent breach of the peace". So ... not actually for breach of the peace.

The cover story is that the EDL members, in London to pay their respects on Armistice Day, were planning to steam over to St Pauls and ... what? Commit a breach of the peace?

However, this does not square with EDL's comments prior to the day.

"To those of you who will still be attending London in the morning to pay your respects,‭ ‬please make your way to Westminster and not Kensington as originally planned.‭ ‬We wish to remind you to conduct yourselves accordingly by dressing smartly‭ (‬suit and tie if possible‭) ‬and acting respectfully and responsibly.‭ ‬This is not an EDL march and EDL colours/hoodies and banners should not be bought along.‭ ‬Above all wear your poppy with pride‭!"

This article discusses the government's proscription of Muslims against Crusades, so the plan to disrupt the poppy burners was no longer necessary. Thus, as far as I can see, the EDL had only one objective - to align themselves with the sentiment of Armistice Day, which dictates respectful behaviour. Getting into fights at St Pauls Cathedral would hardly be fitting. Also these arrests took place in Westminster, two miles down the road, outside the jurisdiction of the police in Westminster incidently.

Antique gun collector jailing stinks of malicious prosecution

Here's a guy with 140 legally held firearms, and he's raided, prosecuted, convicted and now jailed for two years for holding four air rifles without the 'proper certification'?

Bullshit. Here's my guess: the police didn't like the guy holding guns so they raided him looking for something, anything to bust him, so they could grab his property, thereby sending a chilling effect through other gun collectors.

Unnecessary legislation

I couldn't be fagged to watch the whole of PMQs over at Calling England, but one early question (from Jason McCartney of Colne Valley) related to the theft of cabling and memorial plaques, with a call upon the government to legislate to stop such metals being recycled via scrap dealers.

This kind of thing annoys me, because there are obviously laws against such things, and thus no need for additional laws. What is necessary is for the courts to apply the law, and throw the proverbial book at such thieving scum.

Of course, if they want to do something positive about tackling theft, they could restore our right to keep and bear arms, but I won't hold my breath.

An observation

It's a vile business, but one thing stands out in the current trial of Vincent Tabak; he seems to comprehend the enormity of his crime.

It makes a change from the usual dead-eyed, cold-blooded killers we've become accustomed to.