THE DEATH PENALTY and  HUMAN RIGHTS

As with most murders of a particularly horrendous nature the case of Axel Rudakubana has resurrected  the call for the restoration of the death penalty.

For the record, capital punishment for murder was abolished in the UK in 1969 but it was not until 1999 when the UK signed the  6th Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights that the death penalty was automatically abolished for those remaining crimes which still carried it, namely: piracy with violence, treason and  mutiny in military service.

Despite numerous calls that the UK should renounce the Convention and thus be able to  re-instate capital punishment it really isn't that simple.

The Convention was a direct response to the human rights violations perpetrated by Germany during the Second World War and in 1948 politicians including Winston Churchill, academics, business leaders, trade unionists, and religious leaders convened the Congress of Europe, at the end of which the Congress, issued a declaration pledging to create a Convention on Human Rights .

The British MP and lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe was one of the principal architects of the Convention, so given that the it was the United Kingdom that pushed for the creation of a Council of Europe, a European Convention on Human Rights and a court, the European Court of Human Rights to enforce it, and that the Convention was based on the 1689 English Bill of Rights, for the UK to renounce the Convention would be an act of momentous hypocrisy. It would be equivalent to saying that it (the Convention) should apply to all those (semi-civilised) Europeans but that Great Britain was above such considerations.

 When capital punishment was abolished it was replaced, in the case of murder, with an obligatory sentence of life imprisonment.

There is little doubt that the mass of the general public, strongly opposed to the abolition, thought that this meant murderers would be kept in jail for the rest of their lives, but in this they were to be swiftly disappointed.

 In the majority of cases throughout the1960s and right up to2006 the average time served in prison for murder was between 10 and 15  years and it was not until 2003 that the sentencing judge was able to set a minimum time that must be served in prison for a life sentence, and was also able to order that for certain specific crimes the sentence could be  what is known as a "whole life order" where the prisoner can never be released and must die in jail, a power exercised by the Home Secretary until 2000.

 Even in the extreme unlikelihood of the UK revoking the European Convention on Human Rights capital punishment would still be illegal until restored by Act of Parliament. Given that it was Parliament, not a general public consensus, that abolished capital punishment in 1969, 30 years before we signed the 6th Protocol of the Convention, and that Parliament has consistently refused any call to reinstate the death penalty, the chance of any such restoration is not a realistic possibility.

However, there is another consideration on the whole debate that surrounds capital punishment,  that of which is the most humane way of dealing with those which commit the most serious of crimes.
Is it humane, within the broader definition of the term, to incarcerate an 18 year old, in the case of such as Axel Rudakubana, for 52 years?

He will not be eligible for parole until he is 60, at a time in the future which will be so far removed from the world he knew as to be unrecognisable, it would be like being transported to a different world, a world as alien to him as life on Mars.

Is a swift, painless execution a more humane way of dealing with such criminals?

When a dog no longer has any 'quality of life' he is put painlessly to sleep and Parliament is now debating just such an alternative to  those humans suffering from an incurable illness, the so-called 'right to choose'.

So it is inhumane to keep a suffering dog alive and may soon be possible for a terminally ill human to end his or her own life, on the basis that it is cruel and inhumane to allow them to suffer needlessly, but it will still be perfectly acceptable to incarcerate someone for 50 or more years, until they either die within those stone walls, or become so divorced from life outside that they must remain there until death resolves their condition.

One wonders, faced with such a life, how many would choose execution, as did  Gary Gilmore, executed at his own request by firing squad on January 17, 1977.

 THE WASHINGTON AEROPLANE CRASH and PRESIDENT TRUMP

My heart goes out to the relatives, comrades and friends of the sixty seven people killed in Wednesday night's collision between  an American Airlines aeroplane and a US Army helicopter on the approach to Reagan National Airport in Washington, D.C and the subsequent crash of both aircraft into the Potomac river.

However, the comments made by President Donald Trump immediately after the accident beggars belief.

Without a shred of evidence, and in advance of any investigation into the cause of the tragedy, let alone any conclusions, this shameless man jumped on his favourite bandwagon and laid the blame for the accident on 'incompetent' flight controllers appointed by ex Presidents Obama and Biden, appointed not for their ability but because they were 'DEI appointees'.

To try and score political points on the bodies of those killed is beneath contempt. While I am no fan of this bombastic self-delusionist  I didn't think even he would stoop so low.

Even if it had any resemblance of truth, that air traffic controllers had been hired not for their ability but in order to satisfy some Diversity, Equity and Inclusion quota, this program now so belittled and blamed by Trump was actually instigated by him during his first term as President.

By his own standards then it is Trump who is to blame for those sixty seven deaths! 

Orwell had a term for such delusional thinking, he called it 'double think' the ability to hold two diametrically opposed views at the same time, and believe them both to be true. 

Welcome to 1984's America.

TWO-TEIR KEIR AND THE MUSILM RAPE GANGS

So two-tier Keir announces that there will be a public enquiry into the activities and background to the Southport murders by Axel Rudakubana, but still refuses one on the Muslim rape gangs in Rochdale, Rotherham et al which rather than being over, as the Southport murders, is still on-going.

Just this week we read of another trial of Mohammed Zahid, Naheem Akram, Mohammed Shazad, Nisar Hussain, Roheez Khan, Arfan Khan, Mushtag Ahmed and Kasir Bashir, who are all charged with rape, indecent assault and indecency with a child when over a five year period it is alleged they systematically raped and abused two 13 year old girls.

Could it be because the social workers, care home staff, local council employees and police who in numerous areas collectively and severally ignored the girls' plights, in some cases claiming the girls consented, when a child under the age of 16 cannot legally consent to intercourse, who branded the girls 'slags' and even now Oxford, Newcastle, Manchester, and Calderdale councils are refusing to use the term 'Asian grooming gangs' claiming it to be Islamaphobic. No it's not but it is incorrect, these were not 'Asian grooming gangs' they were MUSLIM RAPE GANGS.

Is two-tier Keir's reluctance to order an enquiry because in most cases this abuse took place in Labour-controlled areas and two-tier Keir is desperate not just to avoid alienating the Muslim vote in those areas but does not want his party's dirty linen washed in public?

 TRUMP AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

When taking the oath of office as the new President of the Republic Donald J Trump promised, before God, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, yet one of his first acts as President was to issue an Executive Order which was a blatant violation of the very Constitution he had just hours before promised to uphold.

So what was that all about?

His Executive Order allowed for, during the deportation of illegal immigrants, the deportation of their children as well even if they had been born in the USA.

Why is that significant?

To quote the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:

Fourteenth Amendment

Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Trump has by his actions demonstrated his contempt for the very essence of America and has, within hours, violated an oath he took before God and the world.

Is this truly the best America can offer, a man so wrapped up in his own self aggrandisement and  contempt for the rule of law that he believes he can act with total disregard for the very foundations of his country?

What has this nation that gave us Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and John F Kennedy come to?

TRUMP PARDONS

So Trump, in one of his first acts as President, granted unconditional blanket pardons for those who took part in the January 6th riots in an attempt to overthrow the result of the 2020 Presidential election by force.

Some of the rioters were convicted of seditious conspiracy, which means a group having or taking part in a plan to incite people to rebel against the authority of a state. Treason by any other words.

Some rioters, carrying  confederate flags and weapons attacked police offices, one of whom died as a result of an attack.

But hey! The election was stolen from Trump and these good old boys were just trying to right a wrong.

God help America.

 ELON MUSK SALUTE

At Donald Trump's inauguration parade Elon Musk, who was  prancing about the stage like a deranged puppet with clenched fists gestures

made what many have interpreted as a Nazi salute - judge for yourself.

 THE RT. REV. MARIANN EDGAR BUDDE

The Rt. Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde during a service at the Washington DC National Cathedral did, at the end of her sermon, implore Trump to have mercy and to remember Christian values when dealing with immigrants and trans-gender people who are now afraid for their future.

She reminded him that Americans  were all new-comers once.  It was a powerful and heart-felt expression of those Christian values Trump professes but seemingly does not practice.

It has now gone viral on You Tube, watch it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9uSLoxTtwI

Trump and Vance were clearly not happy with this sermon, Trump afterwards saying it could have been better.

"He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really co-operating with it"

Martin Luther King Jr.

Postscript

Trump has lashed out on his Social Media account calling the bishop 'a radical left hard line Trump hater', that she was 'very ungracious' ......... 'not compelling or smart' .

That she 'is not very good at her job' and that 'she and her church owe the public an apology'.

Wow! She really got to him didn't she?

Notably, amongst this petulant tirade, there is no mention of addressing the issues the bishop raised, but then if you disagree with Trump you are either wrong or stupid, for he can never be wrong.

 TRUMP, GREENLAND AND WORLD WAR III

Donald Trump seems to be determined to take control of Greenland one way or another.

Just to put the record straight, Greenland is an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark and has been a Danish/Scandinavian possession since first occupied by the Vikings in the 10th century.

It's citizens are full citizens of Denmark and as Greenland is one of the Overseas Countries and Territories of the European Union, citizens of Greenland are also European Union citizens

The United States of America has no cultural, religious or indigenous  connections with Greenland whatsoever.

During World War II, the US invoked its Monroe Doctrine and occupied Greenland by military force, Denmark being occupied by Germany at the time was in no position to object.

Despite post war objections to an armed military presence on its sovereign territory Denmark has been unable to compel America to leave and abandon it's illegal occupation and in1951 was forced to enter into a treaty with America giving it a significant role in Greenland's defence and the United States  Space Force currently maintains a base on Greenland.

This is a prime example of a big powerful country like America using its strength and might against a smaller weaker country, it is bullying of the worse kind and a deplorable use by America of its force. America can now no longer be consider a force for good but sits alongside Putin's Russia as a bullying, Imperialist power.

If Trump were to carry out his threat, should Denmark refuse to his 'request' to buy Greenland, and occupy it by force of arms, then as Greenland is a member of NATO, whose creed is an attack against one member state is considered an attack on all, Greenland would be within its rights to demand NATO fulfil its treaty obligations and declare war upon the USA.

 

 BAIL AND SHOPLIFTERS

It was recently brought to my attention that the Bail Act of 1976 has been amended by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

Section 7 of the Act, subsection (5A) clause (d) says:

"A justice of the peace may not remand a person in, or commit a person to, custody if it appears to the justice of the peace that there is no real prospect that the person will be sentenced to a custodial sentence in the proceedings".

OK, so what does that mean in practice?

Let us assume we have before us a prolific shop-lifter, with 86 previous convictions, all of a minor nature.

She or he has pleaded not guilty to the theft of a bottle of wine, value £6.75 from Tesco.

The proceedings must now be adjourned for trial at a later date, and the question of bail must therefore be addressed.

It is highly unlikely that the accused, if convicted, will be sent to prison, such a small-value theft would likely result in either a fine or a low-level Community Order.

Prior to the Bail Act being amended bail could have been refused, and the accused kept in prison until his or her trial on the grounds that:

"The court , based on your record of past offending, has substantial grounds to believe that if released on bail you would,  as you have in the past, commit further offences, bail is therefore refused and you will be kept in prison until the date of your trial".

This is now impossible, and unless the accused has tested positive for Class A drugs, and the offence is drug related, the accused must be released un-conditionally and be free to go on committing further offences.

In all probability the accused will continue such small-scale shop-lifting, racking up offences quicker than the court can process them.

I don't know who or why someone thought that this was a good idea, it is nothing less than a get-out-of-jail-free card to the prolific shop-lifter.

Theft from shops has now reached epidemic proportions.

In 2022/23, retailers reported 16.7 million incidents of customer theft, costing them £1.79 billion, that's £1,790,000,000!

A significant increase from the previous year and which these restrictions on the court's powers will only exacerbate.

 

 INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

The presumption of innocence is the bedrock of English jurisprudence, there is no requirement to prove you are innocent, it is for the prosecuting authority to prove you are guilty, either  beyond reasonable doubt (which just means such that you are sure), or on the balance of probability, used mainly in civil, ie non-criminal matters.

However, there is a disturbing trend to declare someone guilty merely by accusation, if someone suggests he or she 'did it' then they did - end of discussion!

Two notably cases come to mind, the first one being that of the TV presenter GreggWallace

Lorraine Kelly, the so-called 'day-time-queen' has deemed fit to go on television and has 'suggested' that Gregg Wallace 'may' have behaved "appallingly".

 

She goes on to say;

 

"If you make people feel uncomfortable, it's not 1972 ........that a lot of people might say, 'It wasn't that bad really,' well it was, and it was a lot. It wasn't just one person ...............there's a lot of people coming out to say, 'Actually I felt really uncomfortable but I didn't want to say anything'."

It's worth remembering that nothing has been proved against Wallace, and he strenuously denies the accusations made against him, not that a little thing like the presumption of innocence is going to bother the 'day-time-queen'.

 

Perhaps an even worse example is the issue surrounding Prince Andrew's friendship with the Chinese businessman, Yang Tengbo who is 'alleged' to be a spy.

To call the evidence against Mr Tengbo 'slight' would elevate it far above its true worth.

The UK authorities say they 'believed' he was associated with the United Front Work Department (UFWD) - an arm of the Chinese government and even though Mr Yang said he hadn't received orders to interfere with UK interests ie spy,  he could be expected to understand UFWD and the Chinese Communist Party's objectives" and "proactively engage in them without being tasked".

So he's 'believed' to be spying but no-one told him to?

You couldn't make it up - oh no sorry, that's just what the UK authorities have done.

On the basis of such flimsy allegations Prince Andrew has come in for a great deal of criticism for the so-called "unusual degree of trust" between him and Mr Tengb, described as  a "close confidant" of the Prince, being invited to his birthday party in 2020.

Well so what?

It seems to me we are very quick to judge and without a shred of proof  declare someone 'guilty as charged', and if you can, with your spurious allegations, bring down one of the 'great and good' well so much the better - that'll teach em!

 OBSERVATIONS ON 'DIGITAL VOICE'

More properly called  VoIP (voice over internet protocol).

Openreach, who supply broadband and telephone services to the telephone and Internet Service Providers, such as BT, TalkTalk, Plusenet et al will, on the 31st January 2027, discontinue the current telephone system meaning anyone wanting a land-line telephone service after that date will have to use VoIP.

At present, anyone not on a full fibre broadband package will be unable to do this as if your broadband is delivered either solely by copper wires such as ADSL, or partly by copper, as with FTTC (fibre to the cabinet) it will not be possible to split off your phone line from your broadband service.

What this means in practice is that come 31st January people not on a full fibre broadband service, which will be about 70% of the population, will face a stark choice.

a) Either lose your landline telephone service altogether, or

because your ISP needs your current telephone number to provide you with your broadband

b) Sign up for a VoIP telephone service either with your current provider, or a third-party telephone company, which will mean losing your current 'phone number and being issued with a new one. or

c) Changing to a new full-fibre broadband service at considerable more cost and which will require the drilling of a hole through your outside wall to get a new fibre cable into your house.

Then providing you have a power socket near the cable entry point, and a modern telephone handset, plugging your telephone into your new broadband router.

I suspect there is going to be a huge up-roar come 31st Jan 2027 when everyone not on full fibre (the majority of the population) will be given the above choices, assuming someone tells them about them in good time.

Older less 'tech-savvy' customers are most at risk of being excluded from a reasoned decision making process, and vulnerable to being conned by an unscrupulous dealer or individual, keen to make money out of people's predicament.

And no-one is talking about this, nothing from ISPs, no newspaper articles, nothing on TV, some folk, most folk I suspect, are in for a HUGE shock.

 

 

 CRIME AND IMPRISONMENT

In my blog of 6 Jan 2025 I promised to talk a little more on the criminality of our peoples.

We bemoan the size of the prison population, that imprisonment is inhumane, that prisons are 'an academy of crime', that we send far too many people to prison blah blah blah!

Whilst I won't comment on the first three arguments regarding imprisonment, I concede there is a legitimate cause for concern regarding how  prisoners are treated, especially with the dearth of any meaningful rehabilitation programs, but I do take issue with the accepted article of faith that we send far too many people to prison.

Let us look and consider some official UK and EU statistics.

In the UK 1 in 74 crimes results in imprisonment but in France 1 in 55 crimes results in imprisonment. Thus France imprisons 35% more of its criminals than does the UK.

But the UK prison population is about  88, 000, or 141 per 100,000 whilst in France it is only about 68,000, or 102 per 100,000.

Hold on, France sends 35% more of its criminals to prison, but has a smaller number and proportion of its citizens in jail - that doesn't add up.

No it doesn't  and it's these figures which are touted about by the bleeding-heart liberals and such as the Howard League for Penal Reform to denigrate our so-called cruel sentencing regime.

Let us consider another uncomfortable fact, again taken from official UK Government and EU statistics:

The UK crime rate is 6.52 million crimes or 1 in 10 of the population of 66 million and in France the rate is 3.77 million crimes or 1 in 20 of the population of 76  million - thus we in the UK commit twice as much crime as do the French but we send 35% less of our criminals to prison!

Our overburdened prison system is not as a result of courts sending too many people to jail - the unpleasant truth is we commit far too much crime and letting prisoners out early, the over-use of suspended sentences and all the other hoops the courts jump through to avoid jailing criminals will solve nothing.

Until we, as a society, face up the problem of our  tendency to criminality we will not solve the 'prison problem' - we simply can't build enough prisons to do so.

If you doubt our predilection to break the law consider this - in Germany people wait patiently at a pedestrian crossing until the little green man pops up, even at 2 in the morning where there isn't a car to be seen for half a mile, because to cross against the lights is unlawful.

We on the other hand treat such crossings as a challenge and gleefully dance between the queuing cars, totally ignoring the lights.

And this is on the basis that less than 5% of committed crime results in a conviction, let alone imprisonment - God help us if the police actually caught more criminals rather than interviewing people for alleged 'non-crime hate incidents'.

 

 JUDGES AND MAGISTRATES JUST CAN'T WIN - AND 1984!

The Government the media and any number of interest groups are urging courts to send less criminals to prison on the grounds that....

a)  the prison system is overcrowded and can't cope

b) prison is an inhumane degrading environment

c) prison is a academy for crime and

d)  there are better non-custodial alternatives available.

Except..........

despite Parliament introducing a 'two strikes and you're out' basis for the sentencing of knife crime in that those convicted of a second knife-related crime would face a prison sentence of at least six months such is proving not to be the case.

Ministry of Justice figures show the proportion of those being jailed for knife crime is falling with only 50% of the 4000 sentenced for two or more knife crimes being sent to jail.

Various public figures such as the Mayor of Bristol ("we need to take our city back"), retired Detective Chief Superintendent Kevin Moore ("the courts take delight in ignoring the public's wishes") and Patrick Green, CE of the Ben Kinsella anti-knife charity ("that someone caught carrying a deadly weapon twice wouldn't face significant jail time is simply unacceptable") are bewailing the fact that the courts are doing exactly what the Government says, and reducing the number of criminals sent to jail.

Let me be clear, whilst I strongly dispute Kevin Moore's assertion that the courts take delight in ignoring the public's wishes I do agree totally with those at the Ben Kinsella charity that such a failure of Parliament's expressed intent is unacceptable, but the two expressions of the Government's  desires are not compatible.

The courts can't send to prison all those who it should, and at the same time stop sending criminals to jail.

George Orwell in his seminal novel 1984 introduced the concept of 'double think' - the ability to hold two totally conflicting ideas at the same time, and believe them both to be true.

Such I'm afraid is the case here, and criticising the courts for doing exactly what they've been instructed to do, is not the way forward.

In the belief that the people of these islands will not change the habits of history and become more law-abiding (I might blog about that more in the future) the only real solution is to build more prisons, and for the tax-payer to cough up the money.

If society wants protecting from its criminals then it must be prepared to pay for it, without complaint. I stronglt dispute Kevin Moores assertion that ail.caught carrying a deadly weapon twice wouldn't face sign

 THE SEX ABUSE SCANDAL

It's a bit rich Kemi Badenoch calling for a national inquiry into the sex abuse perpetrated by gangs of predatory Pakistani men upon vulnerable white girls in places such as Oldham, Rochdale and Rotherham when the Conservative government, of which she was part, had THIRTEEN YEARS to mount such an inquiry, and failed to do so.

I don't suppose her call at this stage has anything to do with the fact that the head of the Crown  Prosecution Service when these offences were being ignored by the police, social workers, local authorities et al was none other than Sir Keith Starmer?

I'm afraid her faux outrage smacks more of political point scoring than any genuine concern for the failure of the responsible authorities to act due to their warped and misguided view of what constitutes racial harmony.

 QUEUE JUMPER STARMER

I can't speak to the truth of what is about to follow, it's taken from a You Tube video which has been viewed 220,815 times since being posted on 1st January,

see it here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzwA0hISrvA&t=8s

It purports to show Sir Keith Starmer, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, on holiday with his wife and two children in Madeira visiting a toboggan ride where hundreds of mainly British tourists are waiting, some for as much as three hours, for their turn.

What the video reports is that, to the accompaniment of boos and cat-calls, such as "get to the back of the queue", Starmer's children were taken to the front of the queue for their ride on these traditional wicker-work toboggans.

If true then it is no way to win friends and influence people, especially when, according to some recent surveys, Starmer is the most disliked and distrusted PM in modern times.

Not only has he, if the report is true, managed to alienate a great many Brits patiently waiting their turn but has presented to the wider world an image of a Prime Minister totally at odds with the British values of fair play and generosity that he is supposed to represent abroad.