There is none so blind as them that will not see.

John Green

My thanks to everyone for their helpful advice and suggestions. My question to anyone invoking the DPA is to ask: “What is at stake that merits the attention of this Act?” The answer seems to be in most cases not a lot. I can quite understand that personal information that could unwittingly give access to one’s bank account or some other aspect of life that could if it fell into criminal hands result in loss of some sort, should be protected. But, neither of those situations apply in my case.

I’m left wondering if there isn’t some element of self iimportance and “empire building” at play here with no one person actually querying whether their procedures are at all necessary and actually work to protect something worthwhile.

John Green

One doesn’t have to be acquitted to receive favourable and excessively lenient treatment before the law. The rate of acquittal doesn’t come into the argument. It is EXCESSIVELY LENIENT SENTENCING that is the problem. It is the failure to mete out a sentence to match the gravity of the crimes thereby communicating a message to all those who criminally prey on society that you can get away with it – again and again.

You keep harping on about ‘the evidence’ as though you were trying to construct a flaw in my stance. If you want to see it, the evidence is all about you. Read your daily newspaper. Watch news programs (sic) on TV Go to your local County Court and watch and listen. The evidence is there if you want to see it.

You mention your ‘merciful’ nature. That doesn’t make you anything special. Many of us have merciful instincts, but, there is a limit. If you are persistent with ‘mercy’ and ‘kindness’ as befits your nature it will often be mistaken for weakness and, human nature being what it is, you will be treated accordingly. Charity should always begin at home.

Finally, my comments are not directed exclusively against the HRA. There are plenty of our home grown crooks who benefit from the extraordinary leniency of the British judiciary although, pace the riots, that – under Govt. pressure – seems to be changing. Again, if you want evidence, check all the usual sources. It is there in abundance.

John Green

Grey Area.

I’ve written by snail mail asking a number of questions relating to your point re DPA. I’ll post the reply – if I get one !

John Green

For a moment, set to one side the EXPRESS provisions of the HRA. What induces apoplectic fits in the bulk of the population is when it is reported that judges almost continuously, find in favour of the perpetrator rather than the victim.

Despite an avalanche of crimes, the perpetrator cannot be deported because sending them back to their country of origin would place them in jeopardy. GOOD. That is what most of the population wants. We want this good for nothing serial rapist/murderer/burglar/car thief/fraudster who has terrorized this overwhelmingly kind, welcoming but stupid country to receive a prolonged dose of a treatment that would persuade him of the error of his ways.

No, instead they serve a derisory sentence in this country in the equivalent of a Government run holiday camp, then released to start all over again. That is the REALITY. It is judicial interpretation that is at fault. It is the willingness even eagerness of our judges to intercede on behalf of these wicked foreign criminals that is the problem. It isn’t as though we haven’t got enough of our home grown variety.

John Green

Let me see now ! Is it ‘semantics’ or ‘some antics’. Either will do.

John Green