Wednesday, November 03, 2010

John Hirst defends votes for murderers, rapists, paedophiles...



This interview is quite sickening: His Grace neither agrees with John Hirst, nor does he feel inclined to defend John Hirst's right to say it.

It is widely held that this odious individual murdered Bronia Burton, his 63-year-old landlady, by bludgeoning her to death with an axe.

He then went to the kitchen to make coffee and drank it, waiting for Mrs Burton to die.

Slowly.

In agony.

He doesn't like being called a murderer, because he was found guilty of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and sentenced to 15 years in prison.

In the event, he served 25 years due to a number of violent crimes he committed whilst incarcerated.

He is completely unrepentent, believing remorse to be 'a middle class thing'.

In sentencing John Hirst, Mr Justice Purchis said: "I have no doubt you are an arrogant and dangerous person with a severe personality defect."

This interview with Andrew Neil establishes that beyond doubt.

And now we have to contemplate giving the vote to people like this.

The Prime Minister is reported to be 'exasperated and furious' about the ECHR ruling. In Prime Minister's Questions today, he said it makes him 'physically ill' to contemplate giving the vote to anyone in prison.

If he had any sense of the moral outrage being felt by all right-thinking people (and one or two on the left), he would simply have stood at the Despatch Box today and declaimed: "No, no, no!".

It is not political pragmatism which accepts this judgement; it is moral cowardice.

Either Parliament is sovereign or it is not.

It is not for foreign judges to dictate the law to our elected representatives; it is for our elected representatives to govern in the national interest.

40 Comments:

Blogger Gnostic said...

Face it, Your Grace, Cameron is proving to be an even bigger traitor than Brown.

3 November 2010 at 15:14  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Either Parliament is sovereign or it is not.

Parliament could regain its sovereignty tomorrow if Members of Parliament so decided. However, given the choice between (a) a parliamentary democracy operating in the interests of its people and (b) the transfer of power to civil servants in Belgium who operate in the interest of God knows who, MPs choose the latter.

To quote Mr Cameron, it makes me physically ill.

3 November 2010 at 15:29  
Anonymous Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Cameron was tested (yet again) and found wanting... we'd better get used to it, for we have rejected Labour's wolves in sheep's clothing in favour of just...sheep.

3 November 2010 at 15:47  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Surely I am having a nightmare. This is just too ridiculous to be real.
What exactly is it going to take to get Parliament to consider leaving the EU and let us, the people, decide in a referendum. Nothing short of violent revolution I reckon and we don't do that.

3 November 2010 at 16:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We don't all get what we vote for nor by the way do we all vote!

3 November 2010 at 16:21  
Blogger Gnostic said...

I believe in one Party,
Preserver of all that is good in our Constitution,
And of Individual Freedom, Limited Government, National Defence and the Rule of Law:
And in one Party Leader, the only-begotten of the entire Membership,
Chosen democratically by the whole Party,
Centre-Forward, Darling of Conference,
Pre-eminent Parliamentarian of Parliament,
Elected, not appointed,
Being of one philosophy with the Party,
By whom Conservatism is articulated and maintained;
Who for us Members, and for our earthly salvation came down from CCHQ,
And was invited by Her Majesty to form a Government,
And was made Prime Minister,
And was vilified also for us under the BBC.
He was airbrushed and scorned,
And day after day he shrugs it off because that’s his job,
And steps up to the Dispatch Box,
And sitteth on the right hand of the Speaker.
And he shall come again with a larger majority to annihilate the Socialists and the Liberals:
And his Government shall have no end.
And I believe in the Voluntary Party,
The giver of life to the Parliamentary Party,
Which precedeth the Party and the Leader,
Which with the Party and the Leader together should be acknowledged and appreciated,
Because they do all the donkey work.
And I believe in one Conservatism, though it be severally termed 'One-Nation', 'Compassionate' and 'Progressive'.
I acknowledge one Membership for the right to select candidates.
And I look for victory at the General Election,
And for the realisation of the policies to come.
Amen.


Your Grace, perhaps it is time to write a new creed...

3 November 2010 at 16:40  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Why oh why do our cowardly leaders feel any obligation to obey these edicts by foreign powers? What possible consequences could there be if we simply ignored them - like the French & Germans do when it suits them?

We need a revolution, but the only one I see coming is an Islamic one.

3 November 2010 at 17:02  
Blogger steve said...

The French would just ignore the ECHR.

How can they enforce anything on us?

3 November 2010 at 17:14  
Blogger LeucipottomySpoon82 said...

"To have one's fingers stuck in one's ears is better than having one's head stuck up one's arse."

That comment, Your Grace, made my day. Lol!

3 November 2010 at 17:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Such a lot of fuss about nothing!
That convicted prisoners in the UK are allowed to vote in parliamentry elections can not possibly be thought to be of any importance to anyone. No one at all gets to vote for anyone other than candidates appointed by cabals of party politicians up and down the country, almost all of whom qualify on the grounds of dubious honesty and a lust for state money and party handouts in many forms. Furthermore power resides in Brussels and Strasbourg who were given that power by those same politicians whom we all vote for. It could all be seamlessly inserted into "Alice in Wonderland" as a new and up to date chapter. Personally, I think the vote should be given to farm animals as well.

3 November 2010 at 17:23  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Over the years I've regularly come across delinquents like Mr Hirst (and worse). He is a particularly nasty type of delinquent, but there are plenty of them about in brave new Britain.

In a society directed towards the promotion of virtue he would (until recently) have been hanged. But in this madhouse world we have created around us, he appears on television, takes up countless hours of judicial time, makes lawyers rich and takes us all for mugs. And we are required to work to pay for it.

His wickedness is encouraged and elevated into a 'human right' (whatever that may mean) and he glories in causing as much trouble as he can for those whose 'middle-class' values he holds in contempt.

But, make no mistake, Hirst is just the visibly abhorrent tip of an iceberg of wickedness that is remorselessly freezing out the remaining dregs of civil virtue. It has even affected the Prime Minister (of whom I had the highest hopes) who has shown by this latest missed opportunity that he lacks the moral courage needed to save our nation.
It's not good enough to feel 'physically ill' - I feel the same, but I don't have the power to do something about it.
If he doesn't act now and say NO, a thousand times NO, and deliver us from this evil, he is not fit to remain in office. By doing nothing, he not only allows evil to flourish, but he betrays the sacred trust he encouraged all right-thinking Englishmen to place in him.

3 November 2010 at 17:31  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Hirst is, alas, living proof that the death penalty was a good idea...his vileness is is beyond further comment.

3 November 2010 at 17:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd rather he did this than pay millions to the crims in compensation. Accept the situation and impose exceptions and move on.

3 November 2010 at 17:44  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I think given some of the opinions the EU court of human Rights has just shot itself in its own well expensed and meddling foot .It has however caused a great many tea break conversations which perhaps is a good things as we emergr from stalin version of comrade humphry knows best .

The more you think about it the more daft this ruling becomes , do human rights , mean loss of or at the expense of civilised rights .
What are the human rights of the victim ! utter farce

3 November 2010 at 17:53  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

This is nothing to do with the EU. Thought I'd just mention that.

Parliament could easily change this ruling by nominating particular offences for which the vote is withheld from convicts (sorry, prisoners; sorry, inmates; er, sorry, customers). They could for instance specify that all murderers, manslayers, thieves, muggers, paedophiles, etc, be prevented from voting. The judgement of the ECHR is because the ban is blanket, applying to all convicts. Perhaps somebody should write to Carswell encouraging him to support a PMB or TMRB to bring in such legislation. Who would oppose it?

3 November 2010 at 18:03  
Anonymous Oswin said...

If Cameron et al, allow this, they are toast!

3 November 2010 at 18:43  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3 November 2010 at 18:52  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

Barabbas versus Christ again, Your Grace.

It cannot be coincidence that Barabbas is being given more rights.

3 November 2010 at 19:20  
Blogger defender said...

Oh, its worse than just giving prisoners to vote, here is another case this week

Who the real masters are

Today Elsevier (NL) reports that Iraqi asylum-seekers that were scheduled for a return to Iraq will stay, on orders of the European Human Rights Court. The courts decision is a temporary one, with a definitive ruling expected in three weeks.

Earlier, a motion in Second chamber to allow the Iraqis to stay didn't carry (NL), with a majority of 73 votes against 70 voting against the motion.

Now, I am not commenting on the wisdom (or not) of sending back these asylum-seekers. I don't know enough about the particulars to offer any meaningful opinion on the issue.

I would, however, like to note that the decision was made in parliament, through established procedure in a properly democratic way. There was a proper vote, the votes were properly counted and the minister was told by parliament to proceed. But then the defeated minority steered the EHRC to step in and subvert the democratic process. And both the minister and parliament, without any protest, rolled over and submitted.

That little episode shows you who our real masters are. Any pretence of being a sovereign, independent nation is just that: pretension. So, the question is now: What are we going to do?

http://kleinverzet.blogspot.com/

3 November 2010 at 19:25  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

Further to my blurb above, Your Grace...

One wonders why it is that prisoners being given the vote is being seen as a victory for human rights.

It will hardly stop them from being criminals or empower them to take control of their lives, as would say, training for a skill might, in keeping them off the dole and so, out of temptation to commit another crime.

3 November 2010 at 19:43  
Anonymous Gerard Tibercross said...

Your Grace correctly predicted that many people continue to mistakenly believe that the European court for Human Rights at Strasbourg is a creature of the EU, despite my efforts and those of Mr Anabaptist.

However, has your judgment been clouded by the vileness of Hirst? It is not like you to argue ad hominem. The real problem lies at the other end of the criminal spectrum from him. It is entirely a lottery whether on conviction a person receives an immediate custodial sentence or a community sentence. The court in Strasbourg has said that Parliament should think about this and make some sensible rules. If the case had been brought by NACRO for example the judgment would have gone unremarked. But the vile Hirst makes good copy, and even better TV.

Gerard Tibercross

3 November 2010 at 19:59  
Blogger awkwardgadgee said...

However "physically ill" it may make Cameron to comply with this latest intervention from the ECHR, it won't make him ill enough to do anything about it.

And it won't be good enough just to repeal the act which incorporated this rubbish into Law in this country. That would be useless unless we withdraw from the convention and there is more chance of me becoming PM inside a fortnight than that happening.

3 November 2010 at 20:01  
Blogger Catholic Boy said...

The Prime Minister is a GIT. He should pull out of rubbish like the ECHR straight away. If the creepy people he's in coalition with object then he should take it to the country.

But then of course he won't, will he.

3 November 2010 at 20:59  
Blogger Dick the Prick said...

Your Grace

With humility I approach and say that you are mistaken. The tapestry of European rights has been clouded in 'our' understanding of it. The law was not designed for Blighty but neither was it inconspicuous by its absence. Did no Home Office lawyer take note, no FCO dude raise a hand, no Ministry of Justice girl spot a flaw?

Hmmm....this has been handed to Dave cold and bloodied. Why go mental in public when there are some brilliant rooms nearby?

We had the same thing with Single Status negotiations in Local Government. Accept it and move on. Commitments made on that day are felt through man's hearts. A mere judgement is administrative. Dave will find the right employee.

Humbly

DtP

3 November 2010 at 21:07  
Anonymous Thomas J "Stonewall" Jackson said...

I would suggest a 'tea party' over here in England. The one in the US has gone down really well... get the liberals out whilst you can!

3 November 2010 at 21:08  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Stonewall ...there is a difference in being a far-right Brit and those to be found within the 'Tea Party'! They scare the bejassus out of me!

3 November 2010 at 21:25  
Anonymous Atlas Shrugged said...

If he had any sense of the moral outrage being felt by all right-thinking people (and one or two on the left), he would simply have stood at the Despatch Box today and declaimed: "No, no, no!".

Sometimes, in fact almost all of the time I feel like I am trying my upmost to communicate in an intelligent manner to a world wholly inhabited by the deaf, dumb, and blind.

However this has never stopped me in the past and it will not stop me now. However a large cash payment may help.

Saying "NO, no, no," to the establishment is not an option, as Thatcher soon enough found out. Which is a lesson not at all lost on people such as Blair, Brown, and now Cameron, as well as countless others.

Parliament is NOT sovereign, the Sovereign is sovereign, while our sovereign is publicly saying nothing, and doing almost as little, as she is obliged to do.

Technically parliament is many things, as is The Queen of England. However what does technical BS, got to do with the REAL WORLD? Answer; NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

The British monarchy is not a British institution, it is an Internationalist one, acting in what it believes to be the interests of itself, and that of the Commonwealth and most of all the Worlds ruling Nobility/establishment.

Which if you did not know already, basically owns you, all of the worlds multi-national conglomerates, your worlds banking system, and a whole lot more besides. Pretty cool ah?

It is therefore obvious that giving the vote to prisoners is an establishment policy, otherwise it would be resisted by just about every political party, as being profoundly unpopular, most of all the BBC/BBC as a whole, whether popular or not.

Ask yourself.

Who in their right mind would want people such as murderers, to have a say in their own punishment, unless it was the right to choose their own method of execution?

Have you witnessed any protest marches in the street demanding such a thing, not only in this country but anywhere in Europe or indeed the world?

No of course you have not.

There was a time, not so long ago when the establishment actually bothered winning arguments by subsidizing political protest groups, and other lobbying organizations like Trades Unions, and The CBI, to get what it wanted. Now they just dictate policy to their selected henchmen within The Council of Ministers. Which in turn hand down directives to other EU sub groups, and then to selected national prime ministers, and presidents.

Some may describe this method of governance, as a pan-national dictatorship. They of course would be perfectly correct.

It may be fascism, it may be communism, it may be both, namely socialism. What it most surely is not is anything to do with democracy, or government for the people by the people.

The good news is this.

This state of affairs is not at all new, in fact it has always been this way. The only difference is that now the smiley mask, as well as the velvet gloves are evermore quickly coming off.

4 November 2010 at 00:17  
Blogger ZZMike said...

"Either Parliament is sovereign or it is not."

Is that a rhetorical question?

"It is not for foreign judges to dictate the law to our elected representatives;..."

We here in America are facing some courts that seem to think that Belgium is the fount of all legal wisdom. One state is seriously considering passing a law that says that sharia law shall not be recognized.

That they consider that necessary is an outrage.

Over here they still feel that felons should be allowed to vote.

4 November 2010 at 01:02  
Anonymous Atlas Shrugged said...

Stonewall ...there is a difference in being a far-right Brit and those to be found within the 'Tea Party'! They scare the bejassus out of me!

Yes, there is a difference, they are in general Americans. Who often scare the bejassus (whatever that is) out of many people. However please be assured that the British also have a habit of scaring the bejassus out of many people over the entire planet, and for a whole lot longer.

In my experience many if not all people who negatively pontificate regarding members of the so called Tea Party, have little or no idea whatsoever what they collectively stand for. If they did they might care to observe that they as a whole represent the thinking and aspirations of the majority of mankind. Which is a very difficult thing to be caught representing during these, or any other days.

IMO Americans have a form of self assured confidence which was systematically and repeatedly beaten out of most Europeans well before the American revolution.

I state as my evidence for my contention, the fact that many people who speak distastefully about the so called Tea Party, never bother to state any particular policy or degree of thinking, that they actually disagree with.

I contend that most comments are on based on the basest form of envy, and a nagging sense of inferiority inflicted onto Europeans over a protracted period of time.

Instead of misplaced holier then thou nationalism, directed at ordinary American citizens, perhaps it would be more useful and intelligent for us to regard our American cousins as distant family members with a slightly different way of looking at, and also talking about the important issues that very much concern them, and also should profoundly concern us all.

We can only hope.

4 November 2010 at 01:05  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Atlas
My American relatives are close family.American and British politics are somewhat different.

4 November 2010 at 04:33  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

‘It is not political pragmatism which accepts this judgement; it is moral cowardice’.

What can the Prime Minister do? If he rejects the judgment the authority of the European Court of Human Rights is in question and with what stick can the West beat one of the signatories, Russia, with?

Further, it is a condition of membership of the hated European Union to be a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.

‘Either Parliament is sovereign or it is not’.

Parliament, resting on the shoulders of the people, is sovereign. Parliament could repeal the 1972 European Communities Act today.

The world is forming into regional power blocs.

Britain has made a strategic mistake, which can be corrected after much pain. Her future lies with the USA and the Commonwealth.

4 November 2010 at 08:00  
Blogger jdennis_99 said...

Your Grace,

I understand your righteous outrage in this matter - indeed, I share it. However, the UN asserted in 1976 that the right to vote was a human right, and is therefore inalienable - it should be extended to all people, no matter who they are or what they have done. The treaty is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the UK ratified it.

By law, we must give them the vote. But the law is wrong.

4 November 2010 at 08:40  
Blogger defender said...

jdennis_99
By law, we must give them the vote. But the law is wrong

Not by law, by legislation.
Parliament cannot and do not have the power to change the law of the UK. They can make legislation.

4 November 2010 at 09:11  
Anonymous Simian said...

Perhaps I am a lone voice amongst your acolites, but I have to say that I agree with extending the right to vote to those in jail. This surely continues the trend of removing restrictions on universal suffrage. It was not so long ago that women did not have the right to vote. Who are we to declare someone unfit to vote because they have committed a crime? Where to next? No votes for those who are unemployed for over 6 months? No votes for those who cannot read or write? All these are part of our society and surely entitled to have a say in how things are run.
Furthermore, prison is not just about punishment. It is about rehabilitation, and trying to change the habits of recalcitrant offenders. By exluding them from the democratic process we encourage them to think that society is "someone else's problem". If we want criminals to have a social conscience we need to encourage them to feel a part of society.
Give them the vote say I!

4 November 2010 at 09:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Strange, is it not, that on the same day that ‘news’ that prisoners are to be given the vote there comes the overshadowed announcement that ‘Dave’ is to sign a fifty year treaty with the French to share our two French designed aircraftless carriers, give away our nuclear secrets and allow the SAS to come under French control from time to time to form a rapid reaction brigade. No debate in Parliament. No debate anywhere. Smells and looks very much like another big step in the creation of an EU Navy, Army and Air Force to me. Referendum now please, ‘Dave’.

4 November 2010 at 11:27  
Anonymous Elmo said...

Your Grace - You are being too hard on poor Cameron. It must be hard to be in a position where one must always be diplomatic and understanding. He cannot do what you are asking. The problem lies with our idiotic system of government, not with him. He is a mere player...

4 November 2010 at 13:48  
Blogger Phil Taylor said...

Just a thought, but if voting is a basic human then why aren't babies able to vote? Or the homeless for that matter!

And as for how this affects us in general, I'm with steve. What are they going to do if we don't bend to their will? It's the biggest flaw in this whole European dream that Brussels seems to have, that they think that if they decree something then everyone will fall in line.
But look at what happens when the French don't like it, for example when Europe gave British Beef the OK. They refused to import it! And what happened? They were given a telling off and they still refused. Then there's the fishing infringements on our waters by Spanish fishermen. All these things and more are situations where Brussels is worthless but we still accept it. As far as I can tell we have never not obeyed the rules, yet I can't remember many occasions where that has been of benefit to us. GET US OUT NOW!!!

4 November 2010 at 17:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The End times are surely upon us, as foretold. Satan's friends rise ever more quickly to positions of power and control, while men of righteousness wave their arms in despair. I fear worse is to come before the final Battle is engaged....and we must win it at all costs.

4 November 2010 at 21:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As someone who as a youngster committed a minor crime, deeply regretted it, and has since led a relatively blameless life, I worry about the chances for anyone to be rehabilitated (or heaven forbid, forgiven!) with people like you lot about. Christ, what an attitude! I wonder if Cameron feels physically sick at the thought of those well known crininals Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken voting..I'm sure he'd never associate with such people, eh? Hypocrites, the lot of you.

5 November 2010 at 13:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@Phil Taylor

Erm, as far as I recall, the homeless are perfectly entitled to vote if they so wish and provisions are in place for them to do so.

I believe Cameron will heavily restrict the right to vote amongst prisoners to only those whose crimes have not physically harmed people.

I can't really say I entirely disagree. I've fallen foul of the law in my youth (although I've never spent time inside), but I see it as a kind of "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" kind of situation.

6 November 2010 at 07:18  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older