Just Deserts

Two or three weeks ago at the end of February we were rocked by the scandal of the release of four terrorist suspects by Justice Mitting of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.

That's right, Justice Mitting, who decided that failed asylum seekers should have free access to the NHS[1]. He has a habit of making similar kind of decisions, which are usually accompanied by members of the government making noises of intense exasperation.

They were freed according to the Daily Telegraph 'because Government failed to prove they were at risk of disappearing'. Jacqui Smith apparently failing to do her homework[2].

Poor old Jacqui Smith's bewildered face was all over our tv screens and the front pages of our newspapers, there she is again trying her hardest to rid this country of terrorist scumbags and being thwarted at every turn by uncooperative ultra liberal judges.

A couple of days later and the terrorist 'suspects' are behind bars again anyway as Ms Smith decides to overrule the judge's decision and imprison them. Not exactly ideal for the British taxpayer, we're still paying for these animals who hate us and plot against us. But we can't send them back to their original countries, because the SIAC judges decided that we can't trust the countries concerned not to harm them, and we wouldn't want that now would we?

The thing is, how did Justice Mitting get into the SIAC in the first place? He was appointed by Lord Falconer in 2007[3].

How did Lord Falconer get to the House of Lords I hear you ask?

He was put there by Tony Blair, his lifelong pal[4].

So, if Justice Mitting is not performing to our wonderful government's satisfaction, why doesn't Brown get his crony in the House of Lords to appoint another one in his place? Then the farcical events of the beginning of the month might be avoided.

I suggest that Justice Mitting is performing exactly as the government wishes. Keeping the likes of Qatada in the country and releasing them / imprisoning them allows the government to keep the associated terror thread in our minds, and makes us more sympathetic to their 'anti terror' legislation. Which as we have already seen will probably be used for anything other than anti terror means.

[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-558665/More-11-000-failed-asylum-seekers-win-right-free-NHS-care.html

[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/4863867/Jacqui-Smith-attacks-decision-to-free-four-terror-suspects.html

[3] http://www.whitehallpages.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=14937

[4] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2984844.stm

English Votes for Cameron ?

A Conservative victory in next year's general election is bound to cause a headlong dash for complete independence in Scotland. Labour is dead nationwide, and over the border only the SNP and Lib Dems will get their votes. Votes for the Lib Dems might as well be votes for the hated Tories, and will enable five more painful years of Tory rule over the overwhelmingly socialist Scots. Votes for the SNP and the ensuing flight for independence will at least enable the Scots to escape the coming pain of Tory/Westminster rule.

Cameron has stated that it is his desire to govern over the whole of the UK, rather than just England. The only way he can achieve this aim will be to further betray English interests – his core vote remember - and throw more English money over the border to placate the Scots. He has already indicated that the current inequities in the Scottish and English health systems and other areas are of no great concern to him. So I can safely assume that he has no intention of fixing them. If this is the case, then why should any self respecting Englishman vote for the current Conservative leader? He won't get to be Prime Minister of the UK without English votes, it's a simple fact, and in my opinion he doesn't deserve to get them.