Friday, October 23, 2009

On the QT

What a stunning morning! The autumn colours remind me of New England.

Yesterday evening, I was over at St Saviours church in Westgate, where the Reverend Tom Barnfather was welcomed by the local and faiths community as the new priest. Cllr Tom King welcomed him on behalf of the Westgate Residents Association and I'm sure readers would like to join all of us in welcoming him to his new Ministry in Westgate.

Strangely enough, during the service, it was promised we would all be home in time for the BBC's highly controversial Question Time. I won't make any other comment, other than to say that I still believe, in the interests of impartiality and political debate, that it was right and proper to allow Jack Straw to take part in the programme!

What perhaps interested me more yesterday, was the Director of Public Prosecutions, speaking out against the plans of an incoming Conservative Government to derogate from the European Human Rights Act and introduce a British Human Rights Acts instead, with the intention of doing away with the catalogue of abuses of which we are so familiar.

One such example is reflected in the efforts now of four Home Secretaries to repatriate the Afghan hijackers to diverted an aircraft to Stanstead. Each removal order has been quashed by the courts, despite the fact that Britain has expended much effort and too many young soldiers lives, ejecting the Taleban from Afghanistan. The hijackers remain with full welfare entitlements, even though there appears to be no sound reason to let them, other than a generous interpretation of their rights under the European Act. Parliament now has no control over European law interpreted by our judges. However, other countries simply interpret the law to suit their own national and political purposes, the French being a prime example.

I would be interested to know if readers think this is a good idea or take the side of of the DPP?


Anonymous said...

The current director is a Human Rights Act lawyer, so is Cherie Blair.
No Act.
No highly paid job after the election.
No wonder he's worried.

Anonymous said...

I would be very pleased to see most of the Human Rights Bill abolished. It was never designed to be used as an 'escape clause' for criminals and is now a worthless piece of legislation. It needs re-writing completely and all loopholes removed. Perhaps then we can get back to some real sanity in this once proud country. I noted your brief reference to the monumental event of last night, the one in which Jack Straw appeared. This programme was most interesting, and it has helped me to make my decision regarding the next election. The whole point, I feel, was missed entirely. It is this: the three mainstream parties have consistantly failed to address the immigration problems in this country, and, at the risk of sounding racist, the BNP does address this issue. Residents are worried, whole towns are worried, our national identity is being eroded (and if you don't believe me then pop into Aldi's and see for yourself) and our present politicians are not addressing the problems which has left us with not enough schools, dentists, doctors, jobs, houses, hospital beds etc. I saw this happen just once before in my lifetime when Hitler swept through the political landscape and I can see history repeating itself again. Do we really want this, or do we want to see a strong government dealing with real issues that concern us all ? I praise the BBC for taking allowing the BNP to appear, however, it is not up to them is it ? The BNP, like it or loathe it, is a democratically elected political party. When the BBC decides who should appear it will be like the Sun newspaper deciding who will sit in Downing Street.....oh! I forgot, they already do don't they ? Hasn't the Sun swapped sides ? God help us all.

The Refuser said...

Anyone would think that there were no human rights in Britain prior to the introduction of this shysters charter. However I feel that as much as we might like to see it repealed, it is unlikely that it will be replaced, since it is fundamental to our membership of the EU. I fear that the only way to get real change would be to renegotiate our relationship with the EU and I doubt there is the stomach for that.

As for Mr. Griffin on QT. I feel he is unlikely to gain much support from his appearance. I can see how some might feel that the entire hall was against him and therefore he gets the underdog sympathy vote. But they did land some telling blows especially on the issue of his holocaust denial. If he has done anything positive it is to make the issue of immigration a matter of debate once more. I note that the Telegraph has a report that virtually uncontrolled immigration was in fact a matter of secret Labour policy despite their denials. Something which many of us have long suspected.

Quite how this will play out in the Labour strongholds remains to be seen.

The real problem as far as I see is if a party emerges that is not based on race as the BNP is, but chooses to tackle the issue of immigration based on the rise in radical Islam. Such a party could well find support from minorities such as "afro-caribbeans", Hindus and Sikhs as well as the more traditional nationalists.

It was interesting to note that on QT the panel rounded on Griffin for his views on same sex marriage but the Conservative spokesperson Baroness Warsi was not given time to expand on her views on the subject.

She also came out with the rather fatuous remark that there is no such thing as a "bogus" asylum seeker. I suppose from a legal standpoint that is true, but given the numbers of failed asylum seekers in Britain it stands to reason that the vast majority of asylum claims are in themselves bogus.

Anonymous said...

Spending time debating the premise that the UK under a Conservative government would repeal HRA is a waste of resources better spent on other policy areas. UK Lawyers went to great trouble to write ECHR after WW2 to protect peoples from despotic rulers. The fact that the UK finaly enshrined its principles in UK law has saved money and time spent appealing UK law at the court of Human Rights.

Currently, when anti-terror policy is so comprehensive, there has never been a time when Human Rights are in greater need of protection and that UK law is compliant with those standards.

That lawyers advocating on behalf of 'terrorists' have advanced their rights under UK law to the disgust of the 'hangers and floggers' protects all our rights from a would be oppressive government, after all they would know everything about all of us in the name of security.

On first sight it is an attractive option to 'deport to their own fate' or lock up without trial men who are essentially 'the enemy' but the law requires evidence of wrong doing not suspicion based on informtion that cannot be discussed. This has been the case in the criminal law for years and while there have been many instances where the guilty go free it is accepted.

We are not Americans who blindly salute the flag and 'render' for torture. The British have always shown tolerance and forebearing and defended the rights of the oppressed. Why stop now?

As for QT. Griffin was beasted by the panel but not bested. He showed himself to be shallow and deluded but was not given enough rope to hang himself. He should have been taken to places where his stupidity would shine. As it was he was ganged up on and could, to a feeble mind, be seen as a victim.

DrM. said...

An excellent and thought provoling comment 5:48 - Thank you!

DrM. said...

I'm delighted to see how many sensible and thoughtful posts we have had on this subject. They reflect what I'm hearing elsewhere too; the man on the street holding a rather different opinion on the results of the so-called debate than the liberal forces of the BBC.

An alrming watershed and wake-up call for British politics with a General Election only months away!

Anonymous said...

anon again!

Well, I only watched the BNP Leader on the News build up....
so, realising what a bungling blithering fool the man is rather quickly, I didn't watch the main programme. His Party will not get voted in, so we have nothing to fear from that quarter.

However, if the Conservatives want to win the next General Election, they will need more power names on the front line. I'm thinking Michael Howard, William Hague, Ian Duncan-Smith etc. For at present, I see no power.