I was disappointed – but not surprised - to read that crooked immigration lawyers have been milking the immigration and legal aid system for all it’s worth in order to facilitate economic migrants gain illegal residence in the UK.
Apparently, according to the papers, they have even fiddled forms, prepared false stories and suggested to ‘clients’ how they can disguise their fingerprints. So much for the Government’s much vaunted - and largely pointless - Biometric IDs.
One quails to think how many of these parasites there are out there, but the report seems to suggest some £12 million extra may have siphoned out of the system in the past year. Presumably some are more cottage industry ‘extra pocket money’ types, rather less industrial scale than others.
One question that springs immediately to mind is: What is the real difference between these sleazebags and the human traffickers who smuggle migrants into the UK illegally? They are “white collar” is the only obvious one.
One suspects that the maze of human rights legislation introduced by this government can only assist these crooks in their schemes, as it appears to do for most other sorts of crooks and terrorists. If ever there was a case of the law of unforeseen consequences biting inept legislators in the backside the human rights legislation would appear to be it.
Clearly it didn’t escape some lawyers that the legislation - and specialising in it, might be a licence to print money. One must suppose it would have been more apparent to politicians who are also trained lawyers…
Will any politician have the intestinal fortitude to take this ill thought out legislation on? Health advice would be: ”Don’t hold your breath”…
Showing posts with label Crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Crime. Show all posts
Sunday, 23 November 2008
Wednesday, 15 October 2008
Another day, another New Labour Governemnt Database
The Nanny state, apparently deeply concerned that it is leaving us any privacy at all, is now turning it’s attention to the creation of a newsuper database to record when we make phone calls, or send emails and who to, oh and all the web sites we visit.
Of course this is purely ‘for our own good’, to protect us all from terrorism. That catchall ‘bogeyman’ excuse of the Authoritarian state, ‘protecting the citizen from the terrorist and criminal’. The same citizen that the State will not permit to defend themselves against criminals with the frequently used threat of prosecution hanging over them if they do.
A Home Office spokesman disingenuously attempted to claim that: "Changes to the way we communicate, due particularly to the internet revolution, will increasingly undermine our current capabilities to obtain communications data - essential for counter-terrorism and the investigation of crime - and use it to protect the public.
Now as far as I know it is still possible for the authorities to tap phone conversations and intercept post, within the law. They do not currently have a database of all letters sent and to whom as far as I am aware. Nor have they ever had one.
So when the spokes person claimed:"Losing the ability to use this data would have very serious consequences for law enforcement and intelligence gathering in the UK." it did not follow logically at all.
The simple fact is that the state already has access to this and more, such as emails and web useage if they suspect someone. It is going too far to monitor us all.
And we all know the State can be trusted to look after this information and not loose it on a bus, or sell it, or something.
And we all know just how much the promise of the State is worth when they say they will only use legislation only for the purpose it was framed.
...Or maybe we could ask Islandic banks about how anti terrorism legislation was recently limbered up ready to be used to freeze Islandic funds in the UK. Or how other legislation was used to silence and eject hecklers from a Labour party conference.
Of course this is purely ‘for our own good’, to protect us all from terrorism. That catchall ‘bogeyman’ excuse of the Authoritarian state, ‘protecting the citizen from the terrorist and criminal’. The same citizen that the State will not permit to defend themselves against criminals with the frequently used threat of prosecution hanging over them if they do.
A Home Office spokesman disingenuously attempted to claim that: "Changes to the way we communicate, due particularly to the internet revolution, will increasingly undermine our current capabilities to obtain communications data - essential for counter-terrorism and the investigation of crime - and use it to protect the public.
Now as far as I know it is still possible for the authorities to tap phone conversations and intercept post, within the law. They do not currently have a database of all letters sent and to whom as far as I am aware. Nor have they ever had one.
So when the spokes person claimed:"Losing the ability to use this data would have very serious consequences for law enforcement and intelligence gathering in the UK." it did not follow logically at all.
The simple fact is that the state already has access to this and more, such as emails and web useage if they suspect someone. It is going too far to monitor us all.
And we all know the State can be trusted to look after this information and not loose it on a bus, or sell it, or something.
And we all know just how much the promise of the State is worth when they say they will only use legislation only for the purpose it was framed.
...Or maybe we could ask Islandic banks about how anti terrorism legislation was recently limbered up ready to be used to freeze Islandic funds in the UK. Or how other legislation was used to silence and eject hecklers from a Labour party conference.
Wednesday, 7 May 2008
Just how illegal should cannabis be?
Cannabis is illegal. You might not think so from general observation, but it is.
The Authoritarian State in the form of New-Labour’s Jacquie Smith wishes to make it more illegal (Class B) than it currently is (Class C), despite advice to the contrary from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Probably as much from a desire to try to pretend to be decisive, after the electoral thrashing they have just had. Dave the Bloke’s fluffy, environmentally friendly, Conservative party, hinting at it’s less fluffy antecedents, is apparently solidly with New-Labour on this.
One suspects the police would, on the whole, rather leave it where it is,
Given that the State’s policy on drugs effectively makes criminals out of (one suspects) a majority of the population - the otherwise law abiding, the question that occurs is: “What impact does this have on the population as a whole’s respect for the law?”.
One fears much the same as prohibition in the US, almost entirely negative – except for organised crime. One imagines they might pump a fair bit into lobbying for Cannabis to remain illegal…
The Authoritarian State in the form of New-Labour’s Jacquie Smith wishes to make it more illegal (Class B) than it currently is (Class C), despite advice to the contrary from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Probably as much from a desire to try to pretend to be decisive, after the electoral thrashing they have just had. Dave the Bloke’s fluffy, environmentally friendly, Conservative party, hinting at it’s less fluffy antecedents, is apparently solidly with New-Labour on this.
One suspects the police would, on the whole, rather leave it where it is,
Given that the State’s policy on drugs effectively makes criminals out of (one suspects) a majority of the population - the otherwise law abiding, the question that occurs is: “What impact does this have on the population as a whole’s respect for the law?”.
One fears much the same as prohibition in the US, almost entirely negative – except for organised crime. One imagines they might pump a fair bit into lobbying for Cannabis to remain illegal…
Thursday, 28 February 2008
Surgeon ’hurried up’ patient's death to get at his organs
This is what can come from a system that is a little too anxious to harvest organs for transplant.
In the US transplant surgeon Hootan Roozrokh has been charged with attempting to hasten the death of a patient. He is accused of administering drugs to finish off potential organ donor, Ruben Navarro, in order to be able to harvest his organs, after his mother had been advised he would not recover and was persuaded to donate his organs.
Roozrokh was not even supposed to be in the room, but waited there while the patient’s respirator was removed. The patient continued to breath on his own. He then ordered a nurse to administer drugs. The patient still continued to breath on his own and he ordered another nurse to administer yet more drugs.
The patient still hung on and finally died some eight hours later.
If this can happen without Gordon Brown presuming state ownership of our organs how much more likely is it when Drs know they have the state’s blessing to literally take Gordon Brown’s 453.592 g (1 lb) of flesh?
In the US transplant surgeon Hootan Roozrokh has been charged with attempting to hasten the death of a patient. He is accused of administering drugs to finish off potential organ donor, Ruben Navarro, in order to be able to harvest his organs, after his mother had been advised he would not recover and was persuaded to donate his organs.
Roozrokh was not even supposed to be in the room, but waited there while the patient’s respirator was removed. The patient continued to breath on his own. He then ordered a nurse to administer drugs. The patient still continued to breath on his own and he ordered another nurse to administer yet more drugs.
The patient still hung on and finally died some eight hours later.
If this can happen without Gordon Brown presuming state ownership of our organs how much more likely is it when Drs know they have the state’s blessing to literally take Gordon Brown’s 453.592 g (1 lb) of flesh?
Wednesday, 27 February 2008
‘Most Wanted Fugitive’ actually innocent German holidaymaker
It just goes to show how much you can rely on facial recognition software.
A German couple on holiday in the Sicilian resort of Taormina last year were mis-identified as James J Bulger, alleged American crime boss, one of the FBI’s most wanted - and his girlfriend Catherine Grieg.
Fortunately the FBI appear to have adopted a more sensible approach since they had pensioner Derek Bond arrested at gunpoint and clapped in irons whilst on a wine tasting holiday in South Africa. They misidentified him as one Derek Sykes, on their most wanted list. It was days before they even bothered to go look at him. He had to agree to extradition to try and sort it out.
It could have been far worse, he could have been in real trouble as happened to a German businessman in 2005, whilst off on holiday going to Macedonia.
He was allegedly arrested, held captive, flown to Afghanistan and tortured - by U.S. government agents after being mistakenly identified as an associate of one of the 7/11 Hijackers.
Oops! Sorry…
Presumably this is the same vaunted biometric technology to be included in Passports and New Labour’s beloved ID card system and database. The same facial recognition software that was trialled last year as a part of a airport security and hailed as a success.
Knowing it’s going to be there ready to misidentify you as a dangerous gangster, or a terrorist should make you feel so much more secure – doesn’t it?
A German couple on holiday in the Sicilian resort of Taormina last year were mis-identified as James J Bulger, alleged American crime boss, one of the FBI’s most wanted - and his girlfriend Catherine Grieg.
Fortunately the FBI appear to have adopted a more sensible approach since they had pensioner Derek Bond arrested at gunpoint and clapped in irons whilst on a wine tasting holiday in South Africa. They misidentified him as one Derek Sykes, on their most wanted list. It was days before they even bothered to go look at him. He had to agree to extradition to try and sort it out.
It could have been far worse, he could have been in real trouble as happened to a German businessman in 2005, whilst off on holiday going to Macedonia.
He was allegedly arrested, held captive, flown to Afghanistan and tortured - by U.S. government agents after being mistakenly identified as an associate of one of the 7/11 Hijackers.
Oops! Sorry…
Presumably this is the same vaunted biometric technology to be included in Passports and New Labour’s beloved ID card system and database. The same facial recognition software that was trialled last year as a part of a airport security and hailed as a success.
Knowing it’s going to be there ready to misidentify you as a dangerous gangster, or a terrorist should make you feel so much more secure – doesn’t it?
Saturday, 17 November 2007
Saudi rape victim gets 200 lashes and six months
While the great and the good were busy sucking up to the Saudi King Abdullah on his recent State Visit, no doubt salivating at the prospect of more arms sales to the regime, one wonders if they gave much if any thought to this:
A 19 year old Shia girl went to meet her former boyfriend to get any pictures he had of her, as she was due to marry someone else. (Note at this point that the Shia are a minority in Saudi Arabia.)
They were discussing the matter in a car when seven Sunni men kidnapped them both and gang raped them both - Her 14 times!
Naturally enough they complained to the authorities – big, big, mistake.
They were both tried under Sharia law for being unchaperoned and sentenced to 90 lashes.
She made the even bigger mistake of appealing - so the court upped her sentence to 200 lashes and sixty days behind bars.
Their lawyer, Abdul-Rahman al-Lahem, is facing disciplinary action. His comment:
“My client is the victim of this abhorrent crime. I believe her sentence contravenes the Islamic Sharia law and violates the pertinent international conventions,"
"The judicial bodies should have dealt with this girl as the victim rather than the culprit.
"The court blamed the girl for being alone with unrelated men, but it should have taken the humane view that it cannot be considered her fault."
There is something deeply repulsive about a system that will do this and feel it justified.
Maybe a word in the right ear during that visit could have made this appalling miscarriage of justice go away - like the suggestion of anything untoward concerning certain commercial arrangements with the regime did - when they felt it might be ‘appropriate’.
Thursday, 11 October 2007
UK Police Chief advocates legalisation of drugs
Richard Brunstrom, the Chief Constable of North Wales has announced that he will be ‘campaigning hard’ for drugs such as heroin to be legalised.
This has attracted reflex criticism from certain politicians.
Nu-Lab’s Mark Tami, MP for Alyn and Deeside attacked the idea, in an unconscious self parody, as "blinkered and dangerous". Fair enough, if that’s what he genuinely thinks and it is not politician noise.
But he went on: "As 280,000 Class A drug users are responsible for half of all crime, taking the risk of legalising such a dangerous drug is foolhardy and I would not wish to gamble so much on the health and wellbeing of our children."
Parse that sentence again - That is three statements that do not follow on one from another.
Clearly, like much of the government, the man is not strong on joined up thinking, or following through a train of thought to a logical conclusion.
Why exactly is it that drug users are responsible for so much crime?
The policeman Richard Brunstrom knows. It is because illegal drugs are expensive and addicts regularly commit crime to acquire enough money to regularly support their habit. Committing crime like that is an effort for a heroin addict, one they would probably prefer to avoid if they had the choice.
They also often end up with product of unknown strength and quality often dangerously adulterated, to the extent where they get the dose wrong and die.
When addicts use a substance that interferes less with their ability to function and earn, like cocaine and when they earn enough they do not go out to commit crime to support their habit, they just buy it with honestly acquired cash.
Many addicts are driven to commit crime because they can not afford to support their habit any other way.
If addicts such as heroin users could support their habit cheaply and legally they would at least not need to commit crime to support their habit and would be less at risk from misjudging the dose. They might even be more willing to seek help giving up as it could finally be dealt with openly.
Now looking at the matter of crime in a wider context. We all know how prohibition, during the early part of the last century in the US, fostered and promoted the growth of organised crime. The same factors are at work in the case of drugs, except it is not just organised crime that profits from the illegal trade in drugs, terrorists get funding from it also.
Get regulated legal control over the market and you cut off funding to organised crime and terrorism. It should also remove the root cause for much day to day crime, a huge economic drain of society and a source of inconvenience and misery to many of it’s victims.
Nu-Lab and Gordon Broon Breeks take note, you also have a new source of Tax revenue - and a chance to actually meet one of your precious ill thought out targets for once.
This has attracted reflex criticism from certain politicians.
Nu-Lab’s Mark Tami, MP for Alyn and Deeside attacked the idea, in an unconscious self parody, as "blinkered and dangerous". Fair enough, if that’s what he genuinely thinks and it is not politician noise.
But he went on: "As 280,000 Class A drug users are responsible for half of all crime, taking the risk of legalising such a dangerous drug is foolhardy and I would not wish to gamble so much on the health and wellbeing of our children."
Parse that sentence again - That is three statements that do not follow on one from another.
Clearly, like much of the government, the man is not strong on joined up thinking, or following through a train of thought to a logical conclusion.
Why exactly is it that drug users are responsible for so much crime?
The policeman Richard Brunstrom knows. It is because illegal drugs are expensive and addicts regularly commit crime to acquire enough money to regularly support their habit. Committing crime like that is an effort for a heroin addict, one they would probably prefer to avoid if they had the choice.
They also often end up with product of unknown strength and quality often dangerously adulterated, to the extent where they get the dose wrong and die.
When addicts use a substance that interferes less with their ability to function and earn, like cocaine and when they earn enough they do not go out to commit crime to support their habit, they just buy it with honestly acquired cash.
Many addicts are driven to commit crime because they can not afford to support their habit any other way.
If addicts such as heroin users could support their habit cheaply and legally they would at least not need to commit crime to support their habit and would be less at risk from misjudging the dose. They might even be more willing to seek help giving up as it could finally be dealt with openly.
Now looking at the matter of crime in a wider context. We all know how prohibition, during the early part of the last century in the US, fostered and promoted the growth of organised crime. The same factors are at work in the case of drugs, except it is not just organised crime that profits from the illegal trade in drugs, terrorists get funding from it also.
Get regulated legal control over the market and you cut off funding to organised crime and terrorism. It should also remove the root cause for much day to day crime, a huge economic drain of society and a source of inconvenience and misery to many of it’s victims.
Nu-Lab and Gordon Broon Breeks take note, you also have a new source of Tax revenue - and a chance to actually meet one of your precious ill thought out targets for once.
Thursday, 9 August 2007
Homeowner arrested after burglar falls to his death
A 56 year old homeowner in Manchester woke up to find a 43 year old intruder in his 4th floor flat, after some sort of confrontation the intruder fell 40 feet from a window. He suffered severe head injuries and later died in hospital. An occupational hazard you might be forgiven for thinking.
Needless to say the police arrested the householder and have now released him on bail, no doubt after fingerprinting him and taking a DNA sample. He could now face questioning on suspicion of murder.
The CPS (Criminal Protection Service Crown Prosecution Service) and ACPO (the Association of Chief Police Officers) have said that any householder can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime.
Why was it necessary to arrest the householder? The police could hardly claim they didn’t know where he lived and one would have thought the aggrieved householder would have been willing enough to make a statement, or they would have within most people’s memory…
It used to be that the police had some care about arresting apparently law abiding citizens attempting to thwart a crime.
It used to be that the police made some attempt to catch burglars and prevent burglaries themselves. Sadly, since they have had to jump through hoops to meet ridiculous ill conceived state targets and political initiatives, it begins to seem as if they find it so much easier to find reasons to arrest the non criminal ‘community’ and improve Nu-Lab’s dubious crime statistics and inflate the DNA database.
A local voiced what many people will be wondering:
"If the guy who fell out of the window was breaking into the property then why was the homeowner arrested?"
Why indeed…
Needless to say the police arrested the householder and have now released him on bail, no doubt after fingerprinting him and taking a DNA sample. He could now face questioning on suspicion of murder.
The CPS (
Why was it necessary to arrest the householder? The police could hardly claim they didn’t know where he lived and one would have thought the aggrieved householder would have been willing enough to make a statement, or they would have within most people’s memory…
It used to be that the police had some care about arresting apparently law abiding citizens attempting to thwart a crime.
It used to be that the police made some attempt to catch burglars and prevent burglaries themselves. Sadly, since they have had to jump through hoops to meet ridiculous ill conceived state targets and political initiatives, it begins to seem as if they find it so much easier to find reasons to arrest the non criminal ‘community’ and improve Nu-Lab’s dubious crime statistics and inflate the DNA database.
A local voiced what many people will be wondering:
"If the guy who fell out of the window was breaking into the property then why was the homeowner arrested?"
Why indeed…
Thursday, 19 July 2007
Crime and the perception of crime
The UK Home Affairs select committee’s are concerned about how effective the police are. The acting chairman, David Winnick, said: "We know the police have had a major increase in funding over the past decade but it is much more difficult to tell what they have done with it." The committee said the number of officers actually rose by 11% in that time.
According to the British Crime Survey (BCS) (the credibility of which was called into question by the Smith Review of crime statistics), crime had fallen by a third from 1997 to 2006, whilst recorded violent crime had risen by 21%.
One has to question the official figures to some extent in any case. There is strong anecdotal evidence that the targets are actually driving police behaviour away from effective policing and towards producing results that look good on paper. Taking minor easy win offences, or in some cases non offences and turning them into multiple detections. It would also seem changes in the law and organisational practices are resulting in officers spending more instead of less time on paperwork.
Despite the official figures the public appear to be unconvinced.
It seems, according to the authoritative Prof Ken Pease and Prof Graham Farrell that the BCS underestimates figures by around 3 million offences per year by only counting crimes committed against repeat victims up to 5, so if for instance, you report your car has been vandalised 10 times in a year only half of them will count.
Nil desperandum, as they used to say in Rome, it seems ministers are now planning to launch a new strategy to ‘move public perception of crime’ into line with official falling figures…
According to the British Crime Survey (BCS) (the credibility of which was called into question by the Smith Review of crime statistics), crime had fallen by a third from 1997 to 2006, whilst recorded violent crime had risen by 21%.
One has to question the official figures to some extent in any case. There is strong anecdotal evidence that the targets are actually driving police behaviour away from effective policing and towards producing results that look good on paper. Taking minor easy win offences, or in some cases non offences and turning them into multiple detections. It would also seem changes in the law and organisational practices are resulting in officers spending more instead of less time on paperwork.
Despite the official figures the public appear to be unconvinced.
It seems, according to the authoritative Prof Ken Pease and Prof Graham Farrell that the BCS underestimates figures by around 3 million offences per year by only counting crimes committed against repeat victims up to 5, so if for instance, you report your car has been vandalised 10 times in a year only half of them will count.
Nil desperandum, as they used to say in Rome, it seems ministers are now planning to launch a new strategy to ‘move public perception of crime’ into line with official falling figures…
Thursday, 17 May 2007
Madeleine McCann
Madeleine McCann– Still Missing
A thought - I have not heard it suggested on the news - but anyone on holiday in the area in the weeks running up to her disappearance could help, just by looking through all their video footage and stills, to see if there is anything inadvertently captured in them, that in retrospect, might be significant could do their bit.
It could, however unlikely, turn up the missing piece of the jigsaw, so is well worth doing on that basis alone.
A thought - I have not heard it suggested on the news - but anyone on holiday in the area in the weeks running up to her disappearance could help, just by looking through all their video footage and stills, to see if there is anything inadvertently captured in them, that in retrospect, might be significant could do their bit.
It could, however unlikely, turn up the missing piece of the jigsaw, so is well worth doing on that basis alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)