What About The Human Rights Of The Law Abiding Majority!?!

So, Abu Qatada, the radical Islamic cleric and Osama bin Laden’s “right-hand man in Europe”, has been released from jail because we apparently have no grounds to keep him in prison.

It comes as no surprise to me that the principle reason given by the judge, Mr Justice Mitting, for his release was possible infringement of his human rights if we continued to detain him, despite the danger he presents to British people. This followed an earlier Court of Appeal decision to refuse his deportation to Jordan, again on the grounds that it might breach his human rights.


To put this into perspective, the same court had earlier described Qatada as "a truly dangerous individual" who was "heavily involved, indeed at the centre of terrorist activities associated with al-Qa'eda". Despite this description it appears our governments devotion to the European Convention on Human Rights prevents us from throwing him out of our country or locking him.


Over the next few days, weeks and months this dangerous man will be confined to his London home for a minimum of 22 hours of every day and we will require him to wear an electronic tag. We will continue to pay his family £12,000 a year in state benefits, (£1,000 a month), and can now add to this the cost of a 24 hour a day 7 day a week police presence outside his house - all this being spent on a man the police once found with £170,000 in cash in his possession.

Devastation to a bombed hotel lobby in Amman, Jordan, November 1998

This man helped mastermind the 11th September bombings and Jordan has already convicted him, in his absence, of bombings in Amman in 1998 and of providing finance and advice to terrorists planning a series of explosions on Millennium night. To enable us to consider his deportation Jordan promised Qatada a retrial, but our Court of Appeal now says we cannot deport him to stand trial in Jordan because some of the evidence they might use could have been obtained using torture.


If this is what ECHR means to the safety and security of the UK I say we kick it into touch and fend for ourselves.


The British public is very capable of making sensible decisions on human rights and people who want to see an end to our way of life should not be allowed to hide behind European law to retain residential status and claim state benefits - no matter what they claim will happen to them if they are deported!

Crime And REAL Punishment

Not many of us are familiar with the elected Sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona, Joe Arpaio! But does he have any lessons to teach us about punishing criminals in a way that makes them less likely to reoffend?

Sheriff Arpaio keeps getting elected, over and over again, because he punishes criminal activity in a way that marries with his local public's desire to deter crime and not to have to pay excessively for punishment of criminal activity.

Following his election, Sheriff Arpaio decided not to build another expensive jail complex so created the "tent city jail", (essentially a tented village surrounded by barbed wire). He banned smoking and pornographic magazines in jail and he also took away inmates weightlifting equipment, explaining his reasons by saying: "They're in jail to pay a debt to society not to build muscles so they can assault innocent people when they leave."

To keep convicted criminals occupied, he started chain gangs to use inmates to do free work on county and city projects - saving taxpayer's money. Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination.

He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV again but only allows the Disney channel and the weather channel. When asked why the weather channel, he replied: "So these morons will know how hot it's gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs." Coffee is no longer served to prisoners because it has zero nutritional value and is therefore a waste of taxpayer money. When the inmates complained, he told them: "This isn't the Ritz/Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back."


When temperatures rose to record levels in Phoenix in June 2007, the Associated Press reported: About 2,000 inmates living in a barbed wire surrounded tent encampment at the Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to their government-issued pink boxer shorts. On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing pink boxer shorts were overheard chatting in the tents, where temperatures reached 128 degrees. "This is hell. It feels like we live in a furnace," said Ernesto Gonzales, an inmate for 2 years with 10 more to go. "It's inhumane." Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who makes his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic. "Criminals should be punished for their crimes - not live in luxury until it's time for parole, only to go out and commit more crimes so they can come back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things many taxpayers can't afford to have for themselves."

The same day he is reported to have told inmates who were complaining of the heat in the tents: "It's between 120 to 130 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers live in tents, they have to walk all day in the sun wearing full battle gear and they get shot at, and they have not committed any crimes, so shut your damned mouths!"

If all prisons were like Sheriff Joe Arpaio's I wonder whether we might just experience a lot less crime and I am sure we would not be in the current position of running out of prison spaces.

Sheriff Joe is accountable to the residents of Maricopa County and has recently been re-elected for an unprecedented fourth 4 year term. His ethos seems to be that local people want to see criminals punished in a way that deters criminal activity, he does allow political correctness to interfere with his work and he challenges the sort of crazy rules we suffer from as a result of the European Convention on Human Rights. Basically he wants a deal for his law abiding public which is fair on them given they are paying for the criminal activity of others.

I wonder whether the British public would decide to elect people like Joe Arpaio if we allowed to elect our local Chief of Police? It certainly seems to me that we have a lot to learn from people like Sheriff Arpaio and should look to some of his ideas to help redress the balance between taxpayer and criminal.

Thanks Joe, you have given us a lot to consider and shown us we may have a lot to learn!

You can read more about Sheriff Joe Arpaio at: http://www.mcso.org/index.php?a=GetModule&mn=Sheriff_Bio

"Extra" Crime Stats Show A Worrying Picture

When, week after week after week, the Eastwood and Southside Extra leads on violent crime in our local area it is clear we have a problem our political leaders need to do something about!

This week, (5th June 2008), the Extra's lead headline is "Park: Out Of Bounds", following the brutal murder of a local woman in Queen's Park, an area the Extra go on to describe as "still a no-go area a week after the discovery of (the victims) partially-clothed body". Last week, (29th May 2008), the lead headline was "Blade Terror", after an armed robbery at Harvie Avenue Post Office, and a couple of weeks earlier they led with "A Party To Trouble", with the story detailing four assaults on youngsters in Overlee Park, Clarkston.

I know that crime is a local priority because East Renfrewshire Council's own Citizens Panel, (made up of 1,000 local people), say that being free from crime in our communities should be East Renfrewshire's No.1 priority.

So why, you may ask, do so many people believe crime blights our local society when local crime statistics generally indicate a drop in crime? The simple truth is that low level crime, things like graffiti and loutish behaviour by local youths, now go unreported because we all believe our Police are overstretched and will be unable to do anything about it. Oh, and even if someone is actually caught in the act they will have been taught their rights under ECHR at school and will probably use this to get a simple caution and avoid prosecution.

So when it comes to a broken garage window or a scratched car door very few people now report any offence preferring instead to look for an easy life and avoid a whole load of paperwork and just repair any damage so they don't lose their no claims discount.

You can read about Labour's failure to tackle violent in our newspapers and you can see their failure to address low level crime on junction boxes, bus stops and shop fronts every day. Our own MP, Jim Murphy, is happy to be seen in the Extra at any event going, and those he creates to generate a photo opportunity, but where is he when we need a local champion against crime across East Renfrewshire?

Crime costs us all dear, whether this be in terms of increased insurance premiums or the increasing cost to our NHS of treating those injured by violent crime. So, like the good people of East Renfrewshire, crime is my No.1 Priority at every level. The difference is that crime is something I will actually do something about!

Ensuring Crime Does Not Pay

When the public see known criminals and drug dealers touring our streets in fancy cars with private number plates and living lavish lifestyles it is a source of much frustration and they are entitled to think crime really does pay. In recent weeks a number of East Renfrewshire's law abiding citizens have lobbied me with suggestions as to how to ensure crime does not pay, with some very interesting policy ideas having been put forward.

One of the most interesting suggestions arose as a result of one elderly relative having been required to use their assets to help pay for elements of their care. The suggestion put forward is that criminals with assets should pay the State for their board and lodgings while they serve a prison sentence. In other words the law abiding majority should not have to pay to keep a criminal minority who can afford to pay this cost for themselves.

On the basis that with rights we all assume responsibilities, I am minded to support this type of financial penalty on criminals convicted to a prison sentence and intend to pursue this suggestion through our policy development team.

Another East Renfrewshire constituent suggested that any positive equity gained on assets during a prison sentence should be the property of the State. This arose after one criminal could not have the proceeds of their crime taken from them because the police could not prove they were the direct proceeds of the crime for which they were convicted. During their prison stay their house appreciated by more than £60,000 and on their release they sold this asset and benefited financially from their assets increase in value over the period of their prison sentence.

While this is slightly more problematic, I do see the sense in using the prospect of financial loss as a deterrent to criminals and would support moves to ensure criminals are not profiting from their assets while they are serving a custodial sentence.

So, the message I receive from the people of East Renfrewshire is clear - we are sick of the UK being a soft touch on crime, (particularly in terms of punishment), and we are no longer prepared to allow our government to hide behind the European Convention on Human Rights as the reason why they cannot act to hammer those committing crimes in our community. I am determined that East Renfrewshire should have a strong voice in the fight against crime and to ensure there is no hiding place for local and national politicians who cannot be bothered to stand up to those terrorising our communities.